Journal Pre-proofs

Development of a harvesting and transportation machine for oil palm planta-

tions

Abd Rahim Shuib, Mohd Khairul Fadzly Md Radzi, Mohd Azwan Mohd
Bakri, Mohd Ramdhan Mohd Khalid

PII: S1658-077X(20)30025-4
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2020.05.001
Reference: JSSAS 363

To appear in: Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Scien-

ces

Received Date: 6 February 2020

Revised Date: 15 April 2020
Accepted Date: 1 May 2020

Please cite this article as: Rahim Shuib, A., Khairul Fadzly Md Radzi, M., Azwan Mohd Bakri, M., Ramdhan
Mohd Khalid, M., Development of a harvesting and transportation machine for oil palm plantations, Journal of
the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2020.05.001

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover
page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version
will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are
providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors
may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.
 Development of a harvesting and transportation machine for oil palm
plantations

Abd Rahim Shuib*, Mohd Khairul Fadzly Md Radzi, Mohd Azwan Mohd Bakri,
Mohd Ramdhan Mohd Khalid

Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB), No. 6, Persiaran Institusi, Bandar Baru Bangi, 43000
Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia

*Corresponding author. Tel: +603 8920 1504; Fax: +603 8920 1670.
E- mail address: rahim@mpob.gov.my; rahim.shuib2@gmail.com (A.R. Shuib).

1
 Development of a harvesting and transportation machine for oil palm
plantations

Abstract

Harvesting and transportation represent a substantial proportion of the labor cost of a

plantation. Additionally, it involves continuous production of fresh fruit bunches (FFB) by oil
palm to the difficulty in mechanizing process that depends very much on skilled observations.
Moreover, it entails relatively long travelling distances between palms and the need to
transverse terrain within the field. Although various methods are used to collect and transport
FFB after harvesting, the physical shape, size, and operating characteristics of a
machine/transporter should enable an operator to perform the necessary cultural task in an oil
palm plantation. Thus, this project proposed a six-wheel drive with four-wheel steering (6WD
with 4WS) transporter machine equipped with a grabber to assist an operator in loading FFB
into the bucket, and the elevated discharge mechanism could optimize the use of labor. Based
on the maximum 6WD with 4WS transporter capacity of 5.8 tons h-1 and the prototype cost
rounded up to the nearest number (i.e., RM 72,500.00), the expected in-field collection-
transportation operating cost using the machine was RM 4.83 ton-1. As a result, the cost saving
of RM 1.03 ton-1 was obtained with the 6WD with 4WS transporter compared to a mini tractor-
trailer.

Keywords: Oil palm; Tractor; Six-wheel drive; Four-wheel steering; Hydrostatic

transmission; Elevated discharge

1. Introduction

The Malaysian oil palm plantation area in 2018 was about 5.85 million hectares where
Sabah and Sarawak were the two biggest states with 1.55 and 1.56 million hectares of oil palm
plantation area, respectively (MPOB, 2020). Harvesting and transportation are the most crucial
operations in the management of any crop plantation. Mostly in the oil palm plantation, these
mechanization activities represent about 60 % of the total work operation and account for 15
% of the fruit production cost (Henson, 2012; Mansor, 1993). Various methods are used to
collect and transport oil palm fresh fruit bunches (FFB) after harvesting, which largely depend
on the scale of the operation and the topography of the terrain. Although private estates well
practiced the current collection system of FFB using trail evacuation type, such as a mini
tractor-trailer system, however, this mechanized system has a limitation, where its usage is
usually confined to the firm ground on flat and slightly undulating terrain.
The main issue arises when deploying a tractor in uneven terrain, where the harvesting
machine is usually huge and heavy, which leads to prolonged movement. Besides, poor soil
conditions, such as coastal areas and natural landscapes have made it a challenging and
hazardous task to travel by any tractor system. From the economic perspective, studies showed
that the cost per ton of mechanical harvesting equipment is slightly higher than manual
operation. Three recommended methods have been used to reduce machine harvesting costs by
increasing productivity and working hours, as well as reducing machine capital costs (Aribi et
al., 1994; Moradi et al., 2012; Sowat et al., 2018).
The early concept in the development of tractors started by the introduction of the most
straightforward mechanization system, which is wheelbarrows, and the tool is widely accepted
among small plantation holders. Although wheelbarrows help to increase the productivity of
FFB collection by reducing the cost of harvesting tools, yet wheelbarrows need to be pulled

2
with full energy capacity of workers and maintained regularly (Zahid-Muhamad and Aziz,
2018).
The use of mini tractors continued when a mechanical buffalo, namely Badang (Rhyno)
was developed to assist harvesting, collection, and loading of oil palm bunches. This
mechanical tractor could enhance the productivity of workers by performing heavy duty work
while collecting FFB, and the tractor is also easy to maneuver through peat soil. However, due
to some concerns, improvements are needed to find a high-capacity engine and upgrade the
steering wheel's flexibility for this tractor to load more oil palm as it moves through extreme
terrain (Deraman et al., 2013).
Thus, this study was initiated to introduce a mechanization in the oil palm plantation to
assist workers in achieving higher productivity and simultaneously with mechanically assisted
tools, workers could perform tasks that are less strenuous to their body. The integrated collector
machine system will need to address the issue starting from collecting and loading FFB to a
container or transport vehicle until the transmission to the mill with excellent mobility on
various terrain conditions that are typical in an oil palm plantation. Other key features required
include:
 An off-road capability that would surpass a conventional four-wheel drive tractor
currently available in plantations. The vehicle also has to be equipped with different
attachment aids that aim to assist in improving the traction of the machine while
working under demanding field conditions, e.g., extremely wet and soggy areas or on
steep terrain.
 A four-wheel steering mechanism would be required to help the machine to gain better
access to maneuver in tight spots on the terraces while collecting FFB.
 The chassis would be required to be seated on three axles, and these axles are distanced
in such a way to achieve better load distribution on six wheels.
 The oscillating axles on the front and rear are required to allow the machine to adjust
itself on uneven ground or terrain.
 The middle and rear axles are required to be connected by a specially designed bar that
allows the wheels to always be in contact with the ground to ensure good traction.
 A mechanical loading or grabber would be required to be mounted on the cab to assist
an operator in picking up bunches on the ground. This will reduce backache among
operators.
 Finally, an integrated collection system is required to eliminate multiple handling of
FFB and loose fruit collection. An elevated dump box with a payload of 1,000 kg would
allow in-field transport to directly load into a container for onward transport to the mill.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design consideration

In order to propose a detailed specification of a machine to meet the objectives set earlier
in the proposal, a large number of interacting factors were studied. Much of the information
required consists of times to carry out operations and performance figures in terms of output
of the machine in relation to topography and oil palm density that would likely influence the
machine output (Yaakob et al., 1988; Mansoor et al., 1997). The prediction of performance
under agricultural conditions is extremely difficult. Therefore, it was decided to carry out basic
observations to enable a prototype machine to be built that would likely meet as many
mechanical requirements as possible. Computer-aided design (CAD) Inventor software

3
package was used to develop the three-dimensional (3D) design of the transporter components.
All of the components of the transporter, such as its main chassis; undercarriage including
front, middle, and rear axles; and the fuel tank were designed based on the optimized design
parameters. Furthermore, the operator cab was designed and strategically located based on the
field requirements and transporter stability during turning.
Fig. 1 shows the transporter 3D-CAD drawing and geometrical dimension. Each of the
components of the undercarriage was developed with special high-speed stainless steel (HSS).
This single-chassis configuration transporter was rested on three axles and equipped with six
equal-sized tires. A 6 mm thick mild steel C-channel was considered for building each of the
transporter chassis in order to avoid the deflection of the vehicle frame for up to two times of
the total vehicle weight (Shigley and Mischke, 1989). Two frames were connected by two
1,137 mm long hollow rectangular bars with cross-sections to C-channel, with the dimensions
of 75 mm × 100 mm and thickness of 6 mm. The distance between the two hollow rectangular
bars was 1,182 mm. The chassis frame was supported by three axles. The distance between two
rear axles was spaced at 225 mm, which helped to prevent chassis deflection in any working
condition. With three axles, better load distribution can be achieved, hence improved the
traction of the transporter under demanding conditions. The transporter was designed where
low ground pressure tires could be fitted in place of conventional tires, which would enable the
transporter to traverse on soft ground areas. Full detailed technical specifications of the
transporter are given in Table 1.
The machine is hydrostatically driven; hence, it should provide a smooth operation against
the machine with a shifting type gearbox transmission system typically found in Malaysian oil
palm estates. The selection of wide tires coupled with the load being distributed on three axles
could result in better traction; hence, the machine should be able to work on different
topographies typically found in Malaysian oil palm landscapes.

2.2. Laboratory performance test

A laboratory test was conducted for the transporter before the field performance test. The
machine was first evaluated in terms of its ability to travel in a straight path at a considerable
speed. In addition, the transporter is intended to carry the actual FFB load in the oil palm
plantation, which requires the transporter to be tested on undulating terrain. Two main tests
were conducted: straight line test and steering ability test of the vehicle. The straight-line test
was conducted by allowing the vehicle to move for 300 m in a straight line and the time taken
to cover that distance was recorded. The test was repeated five times for engine speeds of 1,800
and 2,500 rpm.
One of the objectives of the project is to develop a transporter that can traverse a difficult
path. Hence, different axle arrangements could be one of the ways to fulfil the objective. The
prototype was designed in such a way that it can accommodate two axles and subsequently
with three-axle arrangement. Fig. 2 shows the axle arrangement mode where the middle axle
was placed at the center of the chassis, whereas for the second arrangement, the middle axle
was placed close to the rear axle. These arrangements were tested to move in a circular motion
where the turning radius was derived. The transporter was allowed to travel with two-wheel
steering 2WS and 4WS as shown in Fig.3. In order to facilitate the measuring of the turning
radius, the transporter was made to travel in a circular motion.

4
(a)

(b)

Fig. 1. (a) CAD drawing and (b) basic components of the transporter with a grabber.

5
 Table 1
Technical specifications of a six-wheel drive (6WD) with four-wheel steering (4WS) transporter with an
FFB grabber.

Item Specifications
Engine KUBOTA Diesel V2203-E, four-cylinder, naturally aspirated, water
cooled
Bore × stroke (87 × 92.4 mm) with displacement of 2,197 cc
Rated power (Pr), 45.3 Hp @ 3,000 rpm
Transmission EATON MD 72400 hydrostatic tandem pump, piston-type
Max. displacement = 41 cc rev-1
Max. operating pressure = 280 bar
Steering System Fully hydrostatic front and rear wheel steering
Traveling Motor 6,000 series CHAR-LYNN @ 245 cc rev-1
Axle Ratio 4.67:1, traveling motor coupled direct to axle
Wheel Permanently engaged six-wheel drive with independent rocking arm
assembly bar mounted for middle and rear axles, and the front axle is
oscillating to ease the steering
Tires Six equal-size tires 12.4–16 - 6 ply (traction lugged)
Fuel Tank (L) 50
Oil Tank (L) 110
Fruit Container Length (mm) 2,330
Width (mm) 1,890
Height (mm) 975
Overall Dimensions Length (mm) 4,870
Width (mm) 2,040
Height (mm) 3,050
Maximum dumping height (mm) 750
Payload (kg) 1,000
Weight (kg) 2,750

(a) (b)

Fig. 2. The transporter 6WD (M) with FFB grabber where the middle axle is placed: (a) the center of the chassis
and (b) at the rear axle

6
 (a)

(b)

Fig. 3. The transporter 6WD with FFB grabber to travel with: (a) 2WS and (b) 4WS

2.3. Field test

A comparative test between a mini tractor-trailer with a grabber (MTG) of 38 hp and the
6WD with 4WS transporter with a grabber was conducted in an oil palm plantation. The MTG
is currently the only machine that has mechanized picking and loading of FFB; thus, the
machine was selected for comparison with the newly developed 6WD with 4WS transporter as
illustrated in Fig. 4. The performance of both transporters was investigated based on certain
parameters, such as picking, traveling in the collection path, turning, loading, dumping, total
collection, fuel consumption, and overall output. The test parameters were recorded once the
transporter entered the field and started to collect FFB. The time taken for each parameter was
logged and analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each repetition was conducted to validate the
test. Nine collection trips were made during the field test. The transporter had to cover two
harvesting paths and there were two rows of palms for each harvesting path with 15 to 20 palms
in one row. The palms were planted in a triangular pattern where the distance between these
palms was 9 m and the total palm density per hectare was 136 palms. Prior to the test, FFB
were harvested and arranged along the harvesting path. At the starting point of the test, the
operator switched on the engine, drove the machine along the harvesting path, and steered the
machine to the nearest available FFB. Upon reaching the FFB, the operator needed to
manipulate the control lever in order to activate the cylinder for grabber arms that involved
grabbing, lifting, and releasing of the FFB into the container. Both MTG and 6WD with 4WS
machines were evaluated side-by-side in order to minimize their variables.
(a) (b)

7
Fig. 4. (a) A 6WD with 4WS transporter with an FFB grabber and (b) a mini tractor-trailer with an FFB grabber.

2.4. Economic analysis

The fabrication cost and its economics in employing a 6WD with 4WS transporter with a
grabber in the oil palm plantation operation were studied. The work involved the determination
of the materials and component cost used in the construction of the transporter, in addition to
the labor cost in the construction process. The fabrication cost influenced the cost of owning
the machine. Meanwhile, the operational cost determined its viability in the operation
compared to the MTG. The study on the operational cost was determined by the ASABE
Standard EP 496.3 FEB2006 ASABE (2006), which required all the costs involved, such as
tax, shelter, depreciation, maintenance, fuel, and capital to be calculated on an hourly basis
(Azwan et al., 2017).

3. Result and Discussions

3.1. Laboratory test of 6WD with 4WS transporter

3.1.1. Straight line test

This test is necessary to ensure the prototype is able to perform the task. In terms of speed,
the machine was able to achieve the target speed of 15 km h-1 during the straight-line test. The
test was conducted by allowing the vehicle to move 300 m in a straight line and the time taken
to cover that distance was recorded. The test was repeated five times for each engine speed.
The average speed of the machine was 11.8 km h-1 for the engine speed of 1,800 rpm and 15.2
km h-1 for the engine speed of 2,500 rpm.

3.1.2. Steering ability of the vehicle

The test was conducted to measure the turning radius of the vehicle with 4WS and 2WS
modes. For the purpose of this study, the prototype was able to function in the 4WD
arrangement; hence, with the 4WD mode, the turning radius of the vehicle was 42.9 % shorter
if the 4WS mode was engaged. For the 6WD with 4WS mode, and with the middle axle at the
center of the chassis, the turning radius was 46 % shorter whereas with the middle axle
(6WD(M)) towards the rear part (6WD(R)) of the transporter chassis, the turning was 42.2 %
shorter compared to the 2WS mode. However, the difference between 6WD(M) and 6WD(R)
was only 1.39 % under the 4WS steering mode as depicted in Table 2.

Table 2

8
 Turning radius of the transporter.
Steering Mode 4WD 6WD(M) 6WD(R)
2WS Left turn (m) 8.41 8.69 8.71
Right turn (m) 7.27 7.57 7.59

4WS Left turn (m) 4.81 4.96 5.03

Right turn (m) 4.44 4.49 4.57
Note: M = the middle axle was placed at the center of the chassis.
R = the middle axle was placed towards the rear axle.

3.2. Field performance test of the 6WD with 4WS transporter

3.2.1. Picking time

The mean effects of machines and interactions of the machines with the day on picking
time were highly significant, whereas the mean effects of the day on picking time were
insignificant as shown in Table 3. The mean picking time per trip for the 6WD with 4WS
transporter and the MTG was also summarized. The results from the least significant difference
(LSD) test showed that there was a significant difference in the mean picking time for the three
days between the two machine systems. The mean picking time for the 6WD with 4WS
transporter was 71.6 % lower than the mean picking time for the MTG. The interaction of the
machines and the day on picking time as highlighted in ANOVA was statistically significant
even though all means between the two machines were significant in the LSD test. Such
situation occurred when there was a small amount of variation in the measured data within the
machine system as mentioned by Schlotzhauer and Littell (1987). The mean picking time per
FFB was 6.60 s for the 6WD with 4WS transporter and 11.37 s for the MTG.
Shuib et al. (1990) in their study also revealed that the mean picking time per FFB was
11.39 s for their mini tractor-trailer with a grabber. A reduction of 55.9 % in the mean picking
time per FFB was obtained for the 6WD with 4WS transporter over the MTG based on their
report. The lower picking time for the 6WD with 4WS transporter was due to the ability of the
operator to see the bunches close to him, whereas for the mini-tractor, the operator had to turn
his neck almost 180° to see the bunches before he could grab and pick the FFB.
Table 3
ANOVA and means for picking time.

Source DF Sum of squares Mean square F value Sig

MACHINE 1 1151.90 1151.90 21.330 0.000
DAY 2 227.05 113.552 2.103 0.144
MACHINE*DAY 2 937.265 468.632 8.677 0.201
Error 24 1296.172 54.07
Total 29 3612.502
MACHINE Picking time1, s Time for
DAY1 DAY2 DAY3 MEAN a bunch, s
6WD 4WS 103.30 a 98.16 a 95.96 a 99.05 a 6.60
MTG 174.30b 174.24b 164.64b 170.96b 11.37
1Means with same letter were not significantly different

3.2.2. Traveling time

The mean effects of machines, days, and interactions of the machines with the day on
travelling time were highly significant as shown in Table 4. The mean travelling time per trip
for the 6WD with 4WS transporter and the MTG was also summarized. The results from the
LSD test showed that there was no significant difference in the mean travelling time for the

9
three days between the two machine systems. The mean travelling time for the 6WD with 4WS
transporter was 43.2 % greater than that for the MTG. The mean travelling time per FFB was
6.5 s for the 6WD with 4WS transporter and 10.8 s for the MTG. Longer travelling time for
the 6WD with 4WS transporter was due to its lower operating speed up to 7.75 km h-1 compared
to the MTG that reached up to 20 km h-1. There was no significance of the days in ANOVA,
indicating that operators' ability controlled the travelling time for both machine systems.

Table 4
ANOVA and means for travelling time.

Source DF Sum of Mean square F value Sig

squares
MACHINE 1 51.483 51.483 1.973 0.173
DAY 2 191.969 95.984 3.678 0.040
MACHINE*DAY 2 152.826 76.413 2.928 0.073
Error 24 626.396 26.100
Total 29 1022.674
MACHINE Travelling time1, s Time for a
DAY1 DAY2 DAY3 MEAN bunch, s
6WD 4WS 47.96 a 40.86 a 47.66 a 45.49 a 6.5
MTG 66.64 b 59.26 b 57.99 b 61.29 b 10.8
1Means with same letter were not significantly different

3.2.3 Turning Time

The mean effect of the machine, day, and interactions of the machine with the day on
turning time were significant as shown in Table 5. The mean turning time per trip for the 6WD
with 4WS transporter and the MTG were also summarized. Results from the LSD test show
that there was significant difference in the mean turning time for the three days between the
two machine systems because the turning distance was too short to result in a significant
difference. Also, the differences in the mean turning time were not significant for all three
days of the test.

Table 5
ANOVA and means for turning time.

Source DF Sum of Mean square F value Sig

squares
MACHINE 1 70.840 70.840 22.76 0.001
DAY 2 160.969 80.203 25.446 0.065
MACHINE*DAY 2 73.433 36.716 11.649 0.302
Error 24 75.644 3.152
Total 29 380.323
MACHINE Travelling time1, s
DAY1 DAY2 DAY3 MEAN
6WD 4WS 8.26 7.38 7.08 7.57 a
MTG 7.96 6.16 6.56 6.89 b
1Means with same letter were not significantly different

3.2.4. Transporting time

The mean effects of the machines on transporting time were highly significant, and the
interactions of the machines with the day on transporting time were also significant as shown
in Table 6. The mean transporting time per trip for the 6WD with 4WS transporter and the
MTG was also summarized. The results from the LSD test showed that there was a significant

10
difference in the mean transporting time for the three days between the two machine systems.
The mean transporting time for the 6WD with 4WS transporter was 50.8 % faster than the
mean transporting time for the MTG. Being on a single chassis, the 6WD with 4WS transporter
clearly showed superb maneuverability in overall movement strictly because of the trail type
of the transporter, i.e., the MTG had a difficulty to make a U-turn during the collection process,
especially with the presence of tight spots and uneven ground.
Table 6
ANOVA and means for transporting time.

Source DF Sum of Mean Square F-Value Pr > F

Squares
MACHINE 1 1,454.64 1,454.64 229.059 0.004
DAY 2 13.043 6.521 1.027 0.373
MACHINE*DAY 2 2.115 1.057 0.166 0.448
Error 24 152.412 6.351
Total 29 37,543.93
Transporting Time (s)
MACHINE
DAY1 DAY2 DAY3 MEAN
6WD 4WS 26.98 27.02 28.92 27.64 a
MTG 41.48 41.08 42.14 41.57 b

3.2.5 Dumping time

The mean effects of the machines on dumping time were highly significant, whereas the
mean effects of days and the interactions of the machines with the day on dumping time were
insignificant as shown in Table 7. The mean dumping time per trip for the 6WD with 4WS
transporter and the MTG was also summarized. The results from the LSD test showed that
there was a significant difference in the mean transporting time for the three days between the
two machine systems. The mean dumping time for the MTG was 10.8 % greater than the 6WD
with 4WS transporter. The MTG had greater dumping time because at some time, there were
losses when the operator emptied the bin. This was due to the insufficient inclination angle of
the tipping bin to unload all FFB in a single attempt. The operator had to repeat at least twice
before all the bunches could be unloaded from the bin.
Table 7
ANOVA and means for dumping time.

Source DF Sum of Mean Square F-Value Pr > F

Squares
MACHINE 1 5.72 5.72 36.128 0.003
DAY 2 0.205 0.102 0.646 0.533
MACHINE*DAY 2 0.225 0.112 0.709 0.500
Error 24 3.800 0.158
Total 29 2,145.27
Dumping Time (s)
MACHINE
DAY1 DAY2 DAY3 MEAN
6WD 4WS 7.98 8.08 7.94 8.00 a
MTG 8.66 8.92 9.04 8.87 b
3.2.6. Total collection time
The mean effects of the machines and the interactions of the machines with the day on
total collection time was insignificant, whereas the mean effects of the day on total collection
time was significant as shown in Table 8. The mean total collection time per trip for the 6WD
with 4WS transporter and the MTG was also summarized. The results from the LSD test

11
showed that there was a significant difference in the mean total collection time for the three
days between the two machine systems. The mean total collection time for the 6WD with 4WS
transporter was 36.4 % lower than the mean total collection time for the MTG. This was due
to the far better time improvement for the 6WD with 4WS transporter in picking operation even
though the MTG showed slightly better time improvement in travelling, transporting, and
dumping operations. The differences in the total collection time were significant only for the
third day and insignificant for the first and second days. A reduction in the total collection time
for the 6WD with 4WS transporter was possible due to the location of the grabber itself with
respect to the chassis of the transporter. The grabber position on the MTG and the trailer
required an extra effort from the operator to pick and later unload the bunches into the trailer.
Another contributing factor was the grabber position on the 6WD with 4WS transporter, where
the grabber was closer to the operator. Therefore, the operator was able to see the bunches at a
closer distance, making the positioning of the grabber's finger to FFB much easier compared
to the MTG.

Table 8
ANOVA and means for total collection time.

Source DF Sum of Mean Square F-Value Pr > F

Squares
MACHINE 1 70.227 70.227 153.558 0.000
DAY 2 0.842 0.421 0.921 0.542
MACHINE*DAY 2 1.418 0.709 1.55 0.233
Error 24 10.976 0.457
Total 29 3,041.61
Picking Time (s)
MACHINE
DAY1 DAY2 DAY3 MEAN
6WD 4WS 8.44 8.44 8.32 8.40 a
MTG 11.00 11.44 11.94 11.46 b

3.2.7. Machine output

The mean effects of the machines and the day on machine output were highly significant,
whereas the interactions of the machines with the day on machine were significant as shown in
Table 9. Also, the mean effects of the day on machine output were highly significant. The mean
machine output per trip for the 6WD with 4WS transporter and the MTG was also summarized.
The results from the LSD test showed that there was a significant difference in the mean
machine output for the three days between the two machine systems. The mean machine output
for the 6WD with 4WS transporter was 19.8 % greater than the mean machine output for the
MTG. However, the differences in the mean machine output were only significant for the third
day and insignificant for the first and second days of the test. Again, the 6WD with 4WS
transporter had the highest machine output on the third day of the test when the operator had
acquired sufficient skill for the operation. Greater machine outputs for the 6WD with 4WS
transporter were also due to the overall arrangement of the grabber and container position.
Shuib et al. (1990) reported that the average machine output of a mini tractor-trailer with a
grabber system was 22 to 24 tons day-1, depending on the crop yield and other factors.
Table 9
ANOVA and means for machine output.

Source DF Sum of Mean Square F-Value Pr > F

Squares
MACHINE 1 103.639 103.639 13.140 0.0013

12
 DAY 2 92.399 46.200 5.860 0.0085
MACHINE*DAY 2 59.208 29.604 3.750 0.0381
Error 24 189.238 7.885
Total 29 444.484
Machine output (tonne/day)
MACHINE
DAY1 DAY2 DAY3 MEAN
6WD 4WS 39.14 41.52 46.62 42.43 a
MTG 32.48 35.65 37.75 35.41 b

3.3. Economic analysis

3.3.1. Operational cost analysis

Table 10 shows the operational cost comparison between the 6WD with 4WS transporter
and the MTG. The total hourly cost for the 6WD with 4WS transporter was RM 19.14 and RM
16.89 for the MTG; thus, a difference of 11.8 % was recorded. Such a distinct difference in the
total hourly cost may be due to the high fabrication cost of the 6WD with 4WS transporter
compared to the market price of the MTG, with a difference of 27.9 % in their prices. This
fabrication cost could be reduced further if the 6WD with 4WS transporter is under mass
production for commercialization. Being a prototype machine, the research and development
cost input was added to the total fabrication cost of the 6WD with 4WS transporter.
Consequently, the percentage difference in the total hourly cost between the two machine
systems could be further lowered by the reduction in the fabrication cost.
For both machine systems, the labor cost showed the highest percentage cost breakdown
with the values of 26.7 % and 30.3 % for the 6WD with 4WS transporter and the MTG,
respectively. Meanwhile, insurance, shelter, and tax cost showed the lowest percentage cost
breakdown with the values of 5.3 % and 4.3 % for the 6WD with 4WS transporter and the
MTG, respectively. All the cost components for the 6WD with 4WS transporter were generally
in the range of 0 % to 31.8 % higher than that of the MTG. This high cost in all cost components
for the 6WD with 4WS transporter was due to its high initial fabrication cost.
The collection-transportation cost per metric ton for the 6WD with 4WS FFB transporter
was computed to be RM 4.83 based on the maximum machine output of 30 tons day-1, the
hourly collection-transportation cost of RM 18.13, and 8 working hours day-1. Similarly, based
on the maximum machine output of 24 tons day-1, the hourly collection-transportation cost of
RM 17.68, and 8 working hours day-1, the collection cost per metric ton for the MTG was
computed to be RM 5.89. Consequently, the 6WD with 4WS transporter achieved a cost saving
of RM 1.06 for every metric ton of FFB over the MTG. In other words, the collection-
transportation cost per metric ton basis for the 6WD with 4WS transporter was 18 % less than
that of the MTG.
Although the cost per hour of the 6WD with 4WS transporter was greater than the MTG,
the net earnings were still higher over the MTG due to the higher machine output. Moreover,
based on the average machine capacity of 5.8 tons h-1 and the machine research and
development (R&D) cost of RM 72,500, the expected in-field collection-transportation
operating cost for the machine was RM 4.83 ton-1. Consequently, a cost saving of RM 1.03
ton-1 was obtained for the machine compared to the MTG. A further increase in the cost saving
could be obtained with the reduction in the machine initial cost when it was produced on a
large scale.
Table 10
Cost comparison for the 6WD with 4WS transporter and the mini tractor-trailer.

13
 Machine System
Cost Component 6WD 4WS MTG 6WD 4WS
Cost % of the Cost % of the VS.
(RM h-1) Total Cost (RM h-1) Total Cost MTG
Fixed Cost
Depreciation 2.61 14.4 2.70 15.3 +26.8
Interest on Investment 1.60 8.7 1.65 9.4 +26.7
Insurance, Shelter, & Taxes 0.80 4.4 0.83 4.7 +26.7
Operating Cost
Repair and Maintenance 3.89 21.1 4.02 22.7 +27.8
Fuel Consumption 4.43 24.3 3.68 20.8 +29.7
Labor 4.80 27.1 4.80 27.1 0
Total Cost 18.13 100.0 17.68 100.0 +12.18
Note: Follows the current currency rate of USD 1 = RM 4.13

4. Conclusion

A 6WD with 4WS transporter was successfully designed and developed where the main
intention was to study the steering behavior or its turning circle. The shorter or smaller turning
circle would help the machine to better navigate tight spot areas while working in the field. For
the purpose of this study, the chassis of the transporter was arranged to run with four wheels
as well as six wheels. The transporter was also tested in the oil palm plantation to assess the
achievable outputs in the field. The mean-field total collection time per trip for the 6WD with
4WS transporter was 12.3 min and its achievable capacity was between 4.2 and 6.4 tons h-1.
The collection-transportation cost per metric ton for the 6WD with 4WS FFB transporter was
computed to be RM 4.83 based on the maximum machine output of 30 tons day-1, the hourly
collection-transportation cost of RM 18.13, and 8 working hours day-1. Similarly, based on the
maximum machine output of 24 tons day-1, the hourly collection-transportation cost of RM
17.68, and 8 working hours day-1, the collection cost per metric ton for the MTG was computed
to be RM 5.89. Based on the maximum 6WD with 4WS transporter capacity of 5.8 tons h-1 and
the prototype cost round up to the nearest number (i.e., RM 72,500.00), the expected in-field
collection-transportation operating cost for the machine was RM 4.83 ton-1. Consequently, a
cost saving of RM 1.03 ton-1 was obtained for the 6WD with 4WS transporter over the MTG.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declared that there is no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Plantation Industries and Commodities of
Malaysia, for providing the facilities and resources for this research.

References

American Society of Agricultural & Biological Engineers (ASABE)., 2006. ASABE Standards
EP. 496.3: Agricultural Machinery Management. St. Joseph, MI, USA.
Aribi, K., Ali, M., Hashim, T., 1994. Mechanized Infield Collection of FFB for Improved
Productivity. In Proceedings 1994 International Planters Conference, on Management for
Enhanced Profitability in Plantations. Incorporated Society of Planters. 289-298.

14
Azwan, M.B., Norasikin, A.L., Sopian, K., Abd Rahim, S., Norman, K., Ramdhan, K., Solah,
D., 2017. Assessment of electric vehicle and photovoltaic integration for oil palm
mechanisation practise. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 1365–1375.
Deraman, M.S., Abd Rahim, S., Zaprunnizam, M.A., Aminulrashid, M., Hartini, M.H., 2013.
Rhyno: A Multipurpose Wheel type transporter for oil palm Activities on undulating
terrain and soggy Areas. MPOB Inf. Ser. TT No. 535 29–32.
Henson, I.E., 2012. Ripening, harvesting, and transport of oil palm bunches, in: Palm Oil.
Elsevier. pp. 137–162.
Mansoor, M., Shuib, A., Nasir, M., 1997. Factors Inhibiting Rate of Mechanisation in Oil Palm
Estates. PORIM Bulletin. Vol. 34. 1 - 10.
Mansor, M., 1993. Economic of mechanization in oil palm cultivation in Malaysia. Kuala
Lumpur Tech. Advis. Comm.
Moradi, A., Sung, B., Teh, C., Joo, G.K., Hanif, M., Husni, A., Ishak, C.F., 2012. Evaluation
of four soil conservation practices in a non-terraced oil palm plantation. Agron. J. 104,
1727-1740.
MPOB (2020), Production of Crude Palm Oil from.
http://bepi.mpob.gov.my/index.php/statistics/production/135-production-2015/736-
production-of-crude-oil-palm-2015.html.1727–1740.
Schlotzhauer, S. D. & R. C. Littell. 1987. SAS System for Elementary Statistical Analysis.
SAS Institute Inc, Nc, USA.
Shuib, A.R., Hassan, A.H., Ah Ngan, M., 1990. Design and evaluation of a crane fitted to a
mini-tractor for mechanical loading of oil palm fresh fruit bunches (FFB). PORIM Bull.
35–39.
Shigley, J.E., Mischke, C.R., 1989. Strength and Deflection of Steel Frame. Mechanical
Engineering Design. Fifth Edition. Published in New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sowat, S.N., Ismail, W.I.W., Mahadi, M.R., Bejo, S.K., Kassim, M.S.M., 2018. Trend in The
Development of Oil Palm Fruit Harvesting Technologies in Malaysia. J. Teknol. 80, 83–
91.
Yaakob, H.H., Toh, P.Y., 1988. Mechanized Infield FFB Collection Using Mini-tractors.
Proceedings of the 1987 International Oil Palm/Palm Oil Conference –Progress and
Prospects. Organized by Palm Oil Research Institute of Malaysia (PORIM) and
Incorporated Society of the Planters (ISP). 441-445.
Zahid-Muhamad, M., Aziz, M.F.A., 2018. Mechanization in Oil Palm Harvesting. Int. J. Acad.
Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 8, 247–256.

15