DESIGN AND SIMULATION OF GARLIC PLANTER

*********** ******** R/****/08

********* ******** R/****/08

********* ******** R/****/08

********* ******** R/****/08

********* ******** R/****/08

A PROJECT SUBMITTED TO

THE DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING

ENGINEERING

SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL CHEMICAL AND MATERIAL

ENGINEERING

PRESENTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE BSC. DEGREE IN MECHANICAL DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING
ENGINEERING

ADAMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY

Adama

December 2020
 DESIGN AND SIMULATION OF GARLIC PLANTER

********* ******** R/****/08

********* ******** R/****/08

********* ******** R/****/08

********* ******** R/****/08

********* ******** R/****/08

ADVISOR: MR. KUBA DEFARU

A PROJECT SUBMITTED TO

THE DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING

ENGINEERING

SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL CHEMICAL AND MATERIAL

ENGINEERING

PRESENTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE BSC. DEGREE IN MECHANICAL DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING
ENGINEERING

ADAMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY

Adama

December 2020
 APPROVAL OF EXAMINERS

I/we, the undersigned/ an examiner of the final open defense by ****** ****,
****** *****, ******* *****, ******* *****, ******* **** have read and
evaluated his/her project entitled “Design and Simulation of Garlic Planter” and
examined the candidate. This is therefore to certify that the project. The project has been
accepted in the fulfillment of the requirements of the BSC. Degree of Mechanical Design and
Manufacturing Engineering.

______________________ _____________________ __________________

Supervisor/Advisor Signature Date

______________________ ______________________ ___________________

Examiner Signature Date
 DECLARATION
I/We, the undersigned, hereby declare that this Project is our original work and has not been
presented for a degree in any other university. And all source of materials used for this Project
have been duly acknowledged.

Candidates name Signature

****** **** ___________________
****** **** ___________________
****** **** ___________________
****** **** ___________________
****** **** ___________________

This BSc. Project has been submitted for examination with my approval as Project advisor.
Name: ______________________________________
Signature____________________________________

Date: _________________________________
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First of all, we would like to thank the Almighty God for giving us strength to carry out this
project and for all his good deeds. Next, we would like to extend our special thanks to Mr.
KUBA DEFARU our advisor for generously sharing wisdom, love, thoughtful advice, and for
his assistance, evaluation, supervision and consultation on the completion of this project paper.
Our appreciation goes to all academic and administrative staffs of the mechanical design and
manufacturing engineering department who have contributed for the success of this work.
Finally, we would like to pass our great gratitude for our campus, Adama Science and
Technology University, for all provisions and life enjoyed in our five years of life in the campus.
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER – ONE ...................................................................................................................... 14

1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 14

1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .......................................................................... 15

1.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT .............................................................................. 15

1.3 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT ....................................................................................... 16

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROJECT ........................................................................ 16

CHAPTER - TWO ...................................................................................................................... 18

2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................. 18

3 Description of the Machine .....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

4 Detailed design........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.5 Shaft Design ................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.6 Design of Drive Wheel ................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.7 Transmission shaft for seed metering mechanism .......Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.8 . Seed Box (Hopper) ....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.9 Chain and Sprocket from the main wheel ...................Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.10 Power Transmission of the driving wheel ...................Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.11 Power Transmission of the metering mechanism ...Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.12 Furrow opener ...........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

 ................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.13 Determination of the push force of the planter ............Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.14 Design and analysis of main frame..............................Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.15 Design of handle ..........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.16 Part drawing of each component of the planter ...........Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.3 COST ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 69

5 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 70

6 RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................... 71

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 73
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 schematic representation of different methods used throughout this project ................. 34
 LIST OF TABLES

Table no description page no

Table 3.1 list of materials used

Table 3.2 Kinds of material used in this project

Table 3.3 Mechanical properties of different grades of carbon steel

Table 4.1 Number of teeth on the smaller sprocket

Table 4.2 Power rating (in KW) of simple roller chain

Table 4.3 Characteristics of roller chains according to IS: 2403 – 1991

Table 4.4 Factor of safety (n) for bush roller and silent chains

Table 4.5 Sprocket dimension

LIST OF FIGUERS AND ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig 3.1 schematic representation of different methods 31

Fig 4.1 FBD of transmission shaft 34

Fig 4.2 horizontal force acting on the shaft 36

Fig 4.3 moment acting on the section ac 37

Fig 4.4 vertical force acting on the transmission shaft 37

Fig 4.5 moment acting on point c 38

Fig 4.6 simulation of transmission shaft 39

Fig 4.7 simulation of driving wheel 40

Fig 4.8 structure of seed hooper 42

Fig 4.9 simulation of seed hooper 45

Fig 4.10 sprocket terminologies 47

Fig 4.11 roller chain mechanism 50

Fig 4.12 sprocket dimension 52

Fig 4.13 sprocket dimension on the metering mechanism 54

 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Description
et al., and others
Fig Figure
a Row width
d Diameter of the shaft
D Driving wheel diameter
f.o.s Factor of safety
P push force required driving the machine
Fb Bending stress
Kg f/shank Kilogram forces per shank
Fs Shear stress at any section
h Total length of furrow opener and shank
I Polar moment of inertia
i Gear ratio
L Mean length (mm)
Lb Hopper/ box length
Mb Bending moment
Mv Maximum vertical bending moment
Mh Maximum horizontal bending moment
Mb Torsional moment;
Mmax Maximum Bending moment
T Torque
Nr rpm of metering mechanism
n Number of cups on the seed plate
nf Number of furrow opener
N Speed of the shaft
P power
p Pitch of the chain
R distance of outer most section from natural
axis
 Ra Reaction at point a
Rs Row spacing,
s Spacing between consecutive cups
Tr Thickness of rim
T1 Number of teeth of sprocket
T2 Number of teeth of sprocket 2
Vb Volume of seed box
Vs Volume of seed
V Mean volume
v Forward speed
W Width
Ws Weight of seed in the box
x Required seed to seed spacing, cm
x1 Center distance between sprockets
Z Section modulus
𝜎𝑠 Allowable stress
𝜎𝑛 Ultimate stress
AFC Actual Field Capacity
CAD Computer Aided Drawing
DQ Drawing Quality
ANSI American national standards institute
ANSYS analysis system
MS Mild steel
 ABSTRACT

In Ethiopia garlic production and its area coverage is in an increasing trend, but due to the lack
of mechanized garlic planting machineries and other factors the rate of production with its area
coverage is low. In this study manually driven garlic clove planter which is simple in structure,
economical, and capable of planting four rows at a time is designed and simulated. The planter
was equipped with main components including Seed hopper, furrow openers, drive wheel, power
transmission, Supporting Frame, seed metering mechanism and seed transporting tubes. Seed cup
having size of 20 mm dia. provided for clove transfer from seed hopper to seed transporting tube.
Solid steel wheel having dia. 400 mm, pulled over the metallic rim, was provided with sprocket
at its hub, to transmit power to drive shaft through chain No. 428. A set of sprockets of teeth 45,
27, 24 and 16 have been arranged to synchronize the forward speed and Seed Metering
mechanism speed for placement of cloves at inter distance of 100 mm. A seed hopper fabricated
with MS sheet having capacity of 10 kg was provided to feed the seed into metering mechanism.
The performance parameters used during the design process includes: seeding mass rate, seeding
depth and seed spacing. With an overall dimension of 690 × 900× 962mm, 8 elliptical spoons.
The average depth and width of planting was 11.5 mm. and 15 mm. Taking all these
considerations this study focuses on the design of a push type manual garlic planter which is
capable of planting 4 rows at a time.

Key Words: Garlic, design, simulation, planter, manual.

 CHAPTER – ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
In Ethiopia mechanization of agriculture is still in an early stage. Because of absence of
mechanized planting, garlic planting is done by manual broadcasting, opening furrows by a
plough and dropping seeds by hand. In the manual broadcasting method, the crop is grown in
relatively small fields by using traditional methods, which, requires about 60 to 65 men for
sowing one hectare [Brajesh et al, 2014].

Garlic Planter is mechanized farming machinery designed and developed to perform planting of
garlic seeds with regular spacing in a row and at regular depth.

According to studies, the development of the first single-row manually operated garlic planter
has been started in 1998 by Garg and Dixit. The machine consisted of a planting mechanism and
a hopper mounted over a vertical disc with spoons on its face. The field capacity of the planter
ranged between 0.03–0.04 ha.h-1. It was highly labor saving equipment as it required only about
83 man-h. ha-1 in comparison to 200 man-h. ha-1 with traditional practice. (Garg et al., 1998).

Ethiopia exported 138,000 metric tons of garlic last year (2019 GC) which was worth $420,000.
The raw fresh Ethiopian garlic bulb for local and export market comes from family growers in
the country. They contribute 95% of the whole garlic national produce. They only produce 16
tons of garlic crop from a single hectare in the good season by using spades and garden forks
which is not a mechanized practice. [Selina Mawucci, 2020]

Under intensive cropping, timeliness of operations is one of the most important factors which
can only be achieved if appropriate use of agricultural machines is advocated. To achieve the
best performance from the productivity of the crop, mechanized agricultural types of machinery
should be used.

Nowadays due to its reduction of labor demand, uniform rate of production, simplicity, less time
consumption and high yield of productivity the machine has been used by most of the farmers
worldwide.
 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Despite its higher nutritional (Abou El-Magd et.al, 2012) and medical value as well as a higher
demand on the market, till this day most of the farmers in Ethiopia depend on traditional
methods of production to produce garlic. These production methods are not so effective in terms
of cost and rate of production. Taking the case of planting system alone the manual planting
system is one of the main drawbacks that make the production to be of a small yield. Traditional
planting system involves the use of human power to plant seeds by hand:

 It is stressful for the planters.

 It requires a high number of labor force that results in high production cost.
 It is very time consuming since it has low seed placement.
 It has non uniform planting depth and plant spacing which makes the planting
system very slow.

That is why mechanization is required in the garlic planting system. There were attempts to solve
this problem by developing a garlic planter machine both tractor driven and manual. But we find
out that these machines are not very suitable for Ethiopian farmers. Tractor driven machines
already produced are not much applicable in Ethiopia since most of the farmers have no tractors
and they are not economically able to buy. on the other hand, most of the countries agricultural
land is owned by small scale farmers with small plots of land and tractors are not suitable for
that. most of the manual garlic planters already designed as well are not so effective since their
capacity is low and most of them are single row planter machines. our project tries to design
effective garlic planter machine boosting the production of garlic as well as the profit from the
production.

OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT

1.2.1 General objective

The general objective of the project is to design and simulate a human driven 4 row garlic
planter.
 1.2.2 Specific objective

 To design the mechanisms of the garlic planter machine

 To design individual components of the garlic planter
 To prepare working drawing simulation of the machine
 To determine cost of the designed planter

SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

The scope of this project is mainly to design a manually operating garlic planter by taking the
case of Ethiopian farmers as a main consideration. It will cover the main components design
assembly and detail drawing and simulation using solid work software. The project will not
cover development of prototype.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROJECT

The successful completion and implementation of this project will benefit:

- The farmers since it will make them to be able to use their agricultural land effectively
with a minimal labor cost and boosted production capacity leading to higher profit from
the production. In addition, it will minimize the physical pain on the farmers that may
happen due to a prolonged manual planting with uncomfortable posture.
- Youths from the small scale enterprises may use manufacturing of this machine as a
source of income.
- The government by saving a foreign currency that would have been used to import garlic
planting machine.
 CHAPTER - TWO
2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Based on the major problems, different researches have been made through a year to develop an
accurate and highly efficient planter to achieve the mechanization of garlic sowing which is used
in small and large sized farms.

Apoorv Prakash, et al (2014) designed and fabricated a self-propelled garlic (clove) planter in
Jabalpur. The design of the machine components was based on the principles of operations to
give a correct shape in form of prototype. The actual field capacity (AFC) was found to be 0.065
ha/h with field efficiency of 79.84 %. The placement of garlic cloves was under a range 4.2 cm
to 5.2 cm depth with a minimum SD and CV of 0.33 cm and 6.92 % respectively. The miss
index, multiple index and seed damage was found to be only 2.67, 8.0 and 1.46 % respectively,
which was within acceptable limits. The machinery cost per hour was calculated as Rs.151.00 /h.
For sowing one ha of land the planter required Rs.2321.50 /ha which would save 55.35 % of
money over traditional methods.

Singh HijamJiten, et al (2014), developed a two-row self-propelled multi crop planter for hilly
areas was developed, and its performance evaluated for planting of maize and soybean seeds.
Power was transmitted from a 1.57 kW engine to the drive wheels and metering mechanism
through chain and sprockets. Inclined plate type seed metering mechanism was used in the
planter. Seeds were placed in the furrows at desired depths through adjustable system. The
average depths of seed placement were 22.50 mm and 21.50 mm for maize and soybean,
respectively. The average draft requirement for the planter was 1.57 K. N, which was within the
capacity of the power source. Average field capacity of 0.11 ha.h−1 was obtained for continuous
operation of the planter at an average forward speed of 1.36 km.h−1 for planting both maize and
soybean. The average field efficiency and field machine index of the planter were observed to be
80.98 and 71.78%, respectively. The man-hour requirement for planting of one-hectare land with
the planter was 9.09. The cost of sowing with the planter was Rs.1100/- per hectare, which saved
64.80% operational costs as compared to manual planting. The savings in man-hours and cost of
planting were substantial.
Gajakos, A.V, et al (2015) designed and evaluated the performance of manually operated garlic.
The weight of the planter unit without cloves was 12 kg. Two persons were required for
operating the planter. One person requires for pulling the implement in forward direction and
another for direction control. The field efficiency of the machine was 84.79 % and the cost of
operation was found to be Rs.1214/ha, depth of placement of cloves was 4-5 cm. Time required
and cost of sowing by planter was effectively less than manual sowing. Yield and returns of
planter were found to be more than manual sowing.

Kumar Manish, et al (2017) developed an animal drawn garlic planter, especially for small and
marginal farms. Six types of digger blades with varied width and nose angles were evaluated for
digging of garlic plants. The digger was operated at 16% soil moisture content and cone index of
1350 Kpa within soil profile 0–150 mm. The draft requirement of 650 mm wide blades was 30%
higher than the pulling capacity of selected pair of bullocks. Blades of 550 mm of radius of
curvature and 700 mm wide curved type with radius of curvature 700 mm had 86% efficiency,
and required less draft with bullock fatigue score of 12. The fatigue score of blades of same
width with 170° and 150° nose angle were 18 and 16, respectively. Field capacity of the digger
was found to be 0.12 ha.h−1, and almost 25 times higher than that of manual digging. The
average garlic damage was in the range of 3.62–5.40% for selected blades. The animal drawn
garlic digger saved 75% cost and 44.8% energy as compared to the traditional method of manual
digging.

M. M. Morad1, et al (2018) developed and evaluated a two rows garlic-cloves planter. The
developed garlic-cloves planter consists of the main frame with three hitching-points,
transmission system, furrow opener, covering device and two planting units. Each planting-unit
consists of gloves hopper, agitator, cutoff, metering device, housing and metering device shaft.
Laboratory experiments were carried out as a function of change in metering device speed,
agitator speed, cutoff clearance and cloves size. While field experiments were conducted to
optimize machine forward speed, the machine performance was studied in terms of cloves
damage, plant scattering, emergency, crop yield, specific energy and planting cost. The
experimental results reveal that the garlic-cloves planter is recommended to be used under the
following conditions:
  Metering-device speed of 20 rpm (0.21 m/s) for all sizes of Chinese garlic cloves.
 Agitator speed of 50 rpm (0.22 m/s) for all sizes of Chinese garlic-cloves.
 Cutoff clearance of 15 mm for all sizes of Chinese garlic-cloves.
 Planter forward speed of 3.44 km/h for the medium clove size.

AM El Shal, A. Awny (2019) designed and developed a two row Chinese garlic cloves planter.
The performance of the planter prototype was evaluated under four levels of planting forward
speeds of 1.2, 1.7, 2.2 and 2.9 km/h and two sizes of Chinese garlic cloves big and small. The
results showed that the best forward speed about 1.7 km/h was as given the actual field capacity
was about 0.19 fed./h, the field efficiency was about 78 %, specific energy requirement was
about 22.4 kW. h/fed., operating cost about 385 EGP/fed., the value of missing hills was about 8
and 6 %, longitudinal scattering of garlic was about 13.3 and 11.7 %, transverse scattering about
3.9 and 3.3 %, the value of double hills about 8 and 13 % by using big and small Chinese garlic
cloves, respectively. It turns out that this prototype does not cause significant damage to the
garlic cloves because it quietly and smoothly picks garlic from the bottom to up in the clove tank
does not exceed the damage rate about 0.8 and 0.4 % when the size of cloves is big and small,
respectively. The prototype saves about 81 % of cost compared with manual planting and saves
the time of planting.

Manish kumar and rama kant (2019) in their study tested and evaluated the effectiveness of
metring mechanisms. In their study, three types of metering mechanisms (i) commercially
available cell type metering mechanism (ii) commercially available spoon type metering
mechanism and (iii) cup type metering mechanism were evaluated for sowing garlic cloves. All
metering mechanisms were tested under laboratory as well as field conditions. The cup type
metering mechanism performed better in comparison to others. Different parameters such as seed
spacing, miss index, multiple index, quality of feed index and precision index for cup type
metering mechanism were found to be 102 mm, 8.73 %, 6.48%, 84.8% and 21.78%, respectively
under laboratory conditions and 108.70 mm, 10.23%, 7.45%, 82.32%, and 22.04%, respectively
under field conditions. Seed damage varied ranged 2–4%.

Garlic has higher nutritive value than other bulb crops: 30–35% dry matter, 6–7% protein, 0.2%
lipid, 23–28% carbohydrate, 0.7–0.9% fiber, 1.1–1.4% ash matter and vitamins, especially B1 ,
B2 , B6 and C. Garlic also contains antibiotics garlicin and allistatin, a number of enzymes,
amino acids, universal substances, including trace elements (Maly et al., 1998).
 CHAPTER - THREE
3.MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 MATERIALS

In carrying out this project various materials are used including component, software and
reference materials. Different academic articles, journals, books, broachers from different
companies and media files from different websites are used as a secondary data source for the
completion of this project. The software material we have used to carry out design and
simulation of this manual 4 row garlic clove planter is Solid works. The components of the
machines were developed based on the principles of operation, available power source, soil
condition, economic and other factors.

the mechanism for feeding garlic cloves used in this machine was cup type seed feeding
mechanism that uses cups attached at a regular interval to the rotating chain mounted on
sprockets.

The planter comprises of main frame, ball bearings, Transmission shafts, seed box (Hopper),
seed metering mechanism (Chains and sprocket, cups), ground wheel with lugs, furrow opener,
furrow closer, seed transporting tube, supporting frame, covering bracket and marker.

3.1.1 Factors affecting selection of materials:

When we talk about choosing materials for a component, we take into account many different
factors. These factors can be breakdown into the following parts:

- Component shape:

The shape and size of a component has great effect on the choice of the processing unit which
ultimately effects the choice of the material. To make it clearer, we consider an example, let the
best possible production method is selected, under given conditions, it is die casting, obviously,
now the choice of the material becomes limited, i.e. one can only choose materials with lower
melting points, e.g. aluminum, zinc, magnesium and thermoplastics.

- Mechanical properties:

To select a suitable material for specific conditions, all mechanical properties, e.g. toughness,
hardness, strength, etc. guide us.

- Fabrication (Manufacturing) requirements:

Method of processing of the material also affects the properties of a component, e.g.forged
components can be stronger than the casted components. Different types of working processes
may also give different types of fiber structure. However, investment casting can provide precise
dimensions at low cost in comparison to machine operations.

Note: fabrication requirements are: cast ability, i.e., ease in casting a material, weld ability ease
in welding the material, machinability-ease to machine a material, formability-ease to form a
material, hardenability etc.

- Service requirements:

Service requirements are: dimensional stability, strength, toughness, heat resistance, corrosion
resistance, fatigue and creep resistance, electrical and thermal conductivity etc.

- Cost: including cost of the material and cost of processing

Cost of the material:

In most of the cases, the cost of raw material accounts about 50 % of the finished cost.
Obviously, the cost of the material is a major factor which influences the choice of the material
or process. We must note that the use of cheaper material will not always reduce the final cost of
the component or product. Use of cheaper material may be associated with higher processing
cost due to large number of operations to be performed and also more scrap. We can easily see
that this sometimes makes the overall cost more than that of expensive raw material in
combination with low processing cost due to lesser number of operations and lesser scrap. The
type of material affects the detailed aspect of design and hence the choice of material as well as
the process is selected at the early design state e.g. whether the material is to be joined by spot
welding, screws or rivets, must be decided at the design state.

Cost of processing:

In most of the industries, the processing cost (labor cost) and other costs such as overhead costs
account for about 50% of the production cost. Overhead cost in automatic industries is much
more than the other costs. If one can somehow reduce all such costs, the total production cost
will automatically reduce.

Availability of the material:

We may find that sometimes the availability of the material becomes a governing factor. When
the desired material supply is limited, then a costly material which is available in ample quantity
may be chosen.

3.1.2 Transmission shaft for the wheel

A shaft is a rotating member, usually of circular cross section, used to transmit power or motion.
It provides the axis of rotation, or oscillation, of elements such as gears, pulleys, flywheels,
cranks, sprockets, and the like and controls the geometry of the motion.

The shaft used here is used to transmit power from the wheel to another shaft through a chain
mechanism, used to connecting the wheels and supporting the machine parts like the frame, the
seed box and the furrow opener.

Material selection in approaching the material selection for the shaft, the are most important
factors are:

- Good machinability
 - High strength

- Good heat treatment properties

- Good wear resistivity

- Reasonable cost

- Availability

- Being Light in weight

By considering the factors listed above carbon steel is selected because it has very high strength,
extreme hardness, resistance to wear, moderate ductility and machinability. This means it can be
easily machined compared to harder steels. Since, the shaft is connecting and supporting
machine element due to this factor it can develop bending stress and shear stress due to its
rotation. So, choosing carbon steel is preferable because its price is relatively low while it
provides material properties that are acceptable for many applications.

The material used for ordinary shafts are carbon steel of grades 40 C 8, 45 C 8,50 C 4 and 50 C 12

The mechanical properties of these grades of carbon steel are given in the following table.

Indian standard designation Ultimate tensile strength, MPa Yield strength, MPa

40 C 8 560 - 670 320

45 C 8 610 - 700 350

50 C 4 640 - 760 370

50 C 12 700 Min. 390

Table 3.2 grade of carbon steel

Therefore, for our design purpose 45 C 8 with Ultimate tensile strength of 640Mpa, Yield
strength of 350Mpa and Ultimate shear stress of 500Mpa is used.
 3.1.3 Seed box (Hopper)

Seed hopper is a large trapezoidal prism shaped container with extensional parts that is used to
store the garlic seeds and contains the seed metering devices (Chain, Bearings and the cup). It is
constructed with some inclination in order to allow an easy movement of the cloves towards the
metering plate. It is designed and simulated using Solid Works in order to have an efficient
carrying capacity of the cloves with better performance.

A 2 mm thick low carbon steel (Mild Steel) sheet metal was used to construct the hopper.

 It contains a small percentage of carbon (max 2.1%) which enhances the properties in a
way that it will not fail immediately due to application of load.

 It has unparalleled weld ability and machinability.

 It has high tensile strength

 It has high impact strength

 Not suitable for heat treatment to improve properties

Comparison between different types of carbon Steel

I. Low carbon steel (Mild Steel): typically contain 0.04% to 0.3% carbon content. This is
one of the largest groups of carbon steel. It covers a great diversity of shapes, from flat
sheet to structural beam. Depending on the desired properties needed, other elements are
added or increased. For example: drawing quality (DQ) – the carbon level is kept low and
aluminum is added, and for structural steel the carbon level is higher and the manganese
content is increased.

II. Medium Carbon Steel: Typically has a carbon range of 0.31% to 0.60 %, and a
manganese content ranging from 0.06% to 1.65%. this product is stronger than low
carbon steel, and it is more difficult to form, weld and cut. Medium carbon steels are
quite often hardened and tempered using heat treatment.
III. High carbon steel: commonly known as “carbon tool steel” it typically has a carbon range
between 0.61% and 1.5%. high carbon steel is very difficult to cut, bend and weld. Once
heat treated it becomes extremely hard and brittle

Due to its excellent properties and its availability it was selected from other types of carbon
steels

3.1.4 Chain and Sprocket

As one of the most widely used steel metals, carbon steel is highly malleable and comes in a
range of carbon content levels. Cold drawn carbon steel is selected over hot rolled carbon steel
for the design of sprocket. The cold drawn carbon steels are typically harder and stronger than
the standard hot drawn steels. As the metal is shaped at the lower temperature, the steels
hardness, resistance against tension breaking, and resistance against deformation is high. 40A45
Type “A” plate sprocket with 4’’ stock bore is used for the metering shaft.

40A45 sprockets are ANSI standard size that has 45 teeth and works with #40 roller chain. These
sprockets are known as a “Type A”, which is a hub less roller chain sprocket. The plate sprockets
are durable, high strength sprocket that is manufactured from 1045CD carbon steel. Hardened to
help minimize wear, then a black oxide finish is applied for corrosion resistance.

3.1.5 Furrow opener

Furrow opener is soil-working element of a sowing device the role of which is to ensure such
deposition of seeds in the soil that optimum conditions for their germination and development
may be obtained. This apparently indicates all the important function of furrow openers.
Considering that optimum conditions for plant developments which depend on the type of soil its
preparation, moisture content and other similar factors and further on individual kinds of seeds
the furrow opener assembly consists of the shank and bottom soil engaging part of furrow
opener.
 3.1.6 Drive Wheel

Drive wheel is a power transmission component, which is used to transmit rotational movement
to the seed cup using a set of chain drives by converting linear motion of pushing effect of a
human force in to rotational movement. It is a wheel at the front of the planter in addition to two
back wheels used for driving the garlic planter. It is mounted below the main frame of the
machine.

3.1.7 Supporting Frame

The components of the garlic planter were mounted on the main frame which was supported by
four wheels. Hollow square frames made up of mild steel were used in the planter machine. The
material taken for the frame was of size 4cm*4cm square section with thickness of material of
0.5cm.

3.1.8 Seed Metering device

A metering device draws garlic cloves from the seed box or hopper and delivers them at a
desired rate in the seed transporting tubes for planting of the garlic cloves in the soil in
appropriate way and uniformly. A vertical plate cup or spoon type picking device was employed
as metering mechanism in the planter. As per recommendation for clove to clove spacing, i.e.
10cm: the ground heel of 30 cm diameter was used giving the circumference of 94 cm.
Therefore, in one revolution the ground wheel would cover 94 cm distance dropping 9 garlic
cloves.

No Item Q Dimension Unit of Images

t measurement
y
1 sheet metal 1 1000 × 1100 Pieces

t = 2mm
2 Angle iron 1 45 × 45 × 1000 Pieces

3 Rectangular hollow 1 4 × 8 × 7000 Pieces

bar
t = 2 mm

4 U - bar 2 4 × 8 × 1200 Pieces

t = 2 mm
5 Flat plate 1 1100 × 1000 Pieces

t = 2 mm

6 Bearing with 1 Boar diameter Pieces

housing 0 = 20 mm
7 Bicycle Sprocket 1 Mountain Set
2 bicycle
8 steel round bar 3 Diameter 20 × Pieces
1200 mm

9 Bolt and nut 1 M8 × 1.25 Pack (1 pack

50 pcs)

10 Bolt and nut 1 M10 × 1.25 Pack (1 pack

50 pcs)
11 Bolt and nut 1 M12 × 1.25 Pack (1 pack
50 pcs)
12 Cage wheel 3 Diameter = 40 pieces
mm

13 Chain 1 1000mm
 14 Seed feeding
mechanism

15 Furrow opener

METHODOLOGY

In carrying out this project we have been through different steps and different methods have been
used. Due to lack of adequate time to communicate with stakeholders we haven’t get primary
source data except for a mini test we used to try to check whether the position of planting the
garlic will prevent it from germination or not. We mainly relay on secondary source data for
carrying out this project in identifying, selecting, processing and analyzing the project. In this
project literature review was used as a reference for supporting the project. Literature review was
used for finding out the suitable parameters for planting garlic including planting depth, raw
distance, seed size and more.

We have been through the product design and development steps for the completion of this
project. We have started with a plan defining a project mission statement and developed a
concept based on the defined mission. We have done a system level design after defining the
product based on a mission and decomposing it into subsystems. Detail design defining the
complete specification and material selection was carried out. We have done a testing and
refinement based on the findings from solid works software simulation done with a part model
The design of machine components mainly depends on the principles of operations and
simulated performance and efficiency compared to the other conventional one

We used specific standard procedures and techniques to design and evaluate the garlic clove
planter.

3.2.1 Identification of the problem

We identified and explained the gap between the current state and desired state based on real
facts. We wrote a concise description of the problems clearly to address the conditions to be
improved.

3.2.2 Literature review

We made a comprehensive review and summary of previous research by enumerating, describing

and objectively clarify the previous research and identified why we are making further study by
placing our research context within the existing ones.

3.2.3 Part Drawing

This is where we made 2D and 3D models with plans and specifications.

3.2.4 Assembly

We used CAD software (Solid Works) to handle multiple files that represent components within
a product.

3.2.5 Detail Design Analysis

This is where the design was refined and plans, specifications and estimates are created

3.2.6 Simulation

To predict the performance of the project in the real world we created and analyzed a digital
prototype of a physical model using ANSYS simulation software.
 3.2.7 Cost analysis

We determined and justified the feasible of our project by figuring out if its benefits outweigh
costs. We began by making lists, which includes all the expenses of the project together with the
benefits that will derive from it once the project will be completed.

3.2.8 Results and Discussion

Based on the above results using the actual data and numbers we made a comparison with the
previous works and finding.

3.2.9 Report

We have compiled an information based on the result of the research and analysis of data.
 Identification of the problem

Literature review -Overall machine

-Each part designs
-Cost

Detail part drawing Solid work

Assembly

Detail design analysis

Simulation

Result and Discussion

Report

Figure 1 schematic representation of different methods used throughout this project

 CHAPTER FOUR

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter the dimensional analysis, force analysis and stress analysis of each component of
the garlic planter will be discussed. Along with their simulation will be included as a result and
major findings of design analysis using solid work software.

4.1 Detailed Design

4.1.1 Design of Transmission Shaft

Figure 4.1.a Transmission shaft 3D drawing

Figure 4.1.b von misses stress on the shaft

Fig 4.1b shows the simulation of transmission shaft when most of the garlic planter applied on it.
It is exaggerated to show the position of stress. It do fulfill the requirements.
The length of the ground wheel shaft is determined by considering the dimension of the wheel,
sprocket, bearing and the bearing housing width, the whole structure of the mechanism and the
clearance. Considering all these components, the length of the input and output shaft is taken as
90cm.

Equations used in the analysis:

𝑇 𝑆𝐻𝐸𝐴𝑅
= ……………………….1
𝐽 𝑅

𝜋
𝐽 = 32 ∗ 𝐷4 ……………………….2

2𝜋𝑁𝑇
𝑃= ……………………….. 3
60

𝑃∗60
𝑇= ……………………….. 4
2𝜋𝑁

𝑉𝑎𝑣
ω= ………………………... 5
𝑟

Where, T= twisting moment acting up on the shaft

J=polar moment of inertia of the shaft about the axis of rotation

τ= torsional shear stress

R= distance from neutral axis to the outer most fiber

d = diameter of the shaft

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. We know that,

Shaft subjected to twisting moment

In this project we are going to use round carbon steel shaft with a length of 90cm long and then
for round shaft the polar moment of inertia is given as;
From equation (2)

d=

where, d = diameter of the shaft

Note: - Here the moment or the torque (T) we use in the calculation to find the diameter is the
average of torque acted by both twisting and bending, which is equivalent twisting moment Te.

Power transmitted by the shaft; P is calculated from equation (3)

Now, on average a human can work on the field for 4 hours continuously. If the power
developed by an average operator is 0.35 hp. So, the power generated by the man will be, P=
0.35hp = 260.995 watts. Garg et al. (2003)

To find the number of revolutions, N.

Average walking speed, ω = , the average velocity a wheel can ran is estimated about
0.13m/s and the diameter of the wheel is given 40cm and the radius r= 20cm = 0.2m

Then, ω = = 0.13 ms-1/ 0.2 m= 0.65 rad/sec

0.65𝑟𝑎𝑑 60
N= ∗ 2𝜋 = 6.21 rpm
𝑠𝑒𝑐

60 60
T= 𝑃 ∗ 2𝜋𝑁 = 260.995 ∗ 2𝜋∗6.21 = 401.34 Nm

Shaft subjected to bending moment

The machine parts apply their weight on the shaft along with the forces exerted upon them
causes the shaft to bend. Furthermore, the two wheels at both end of the shaft causes it to twist.
In other words, the shaft is subjected to torque and bending moment. This shaft is mounted on
both side of ground wheel and can be assumed as simply supported beam.

The weight of components of the planter that has significant effect in bending of the shaft was

estimated as follows by taking maximum possible weight of components;

Total weight on the planter is the sum of the weight of seed, weight of seed box, weight of
furrow openers, weight of frame, weight of chains and sprockets with shafts and weight of other
attaching components.

Total weight of planter = 40 Kg * 9.81 ms-2

= 392.4 N

Considering load imposed on the shaft equals to 50-60 % of total weight of machine with seed

Total weight on the shaft = 392.4 x 50/100

= 196.2 N

𝑭𝑻
40 cm

15 cm
80
𝑹𝒂 𝑹𝒃
cm

Figure 4. 2 free body diagram of forces acting on the shaft

Where: Ra &Rb– Reaction force at the support

Ft – Tangential force

FT – Total weight applied on the shaft by the machine and seed

Tangential force:

Ft =

where D = diameter of the sprocket

Ft = 2*401.34/0.136 m = 5902.059 N

 Normal load acting on the tooth of the sprocket, W

𝐹𝑡
𝑊=
cos 𝛼

where, 𝛼 = pressure angle = 200

Note: pressure angle is the angle at a pitch point between the line of pressure (which is normal to
the tooth surface) and the plane tangent to the pitch surface.

5902.059
𝑊= = 6280.84 N
cos 20

Since the sprocket is mounted at a distance of 10 cm from the support, then the maximum
bending moment at that point of the sprocket will be M,

𝑤𝐿 6280.84∗0.1
𝑀= =
4 4

= 157.021 Nm

Thus, to calculate the diameter of shaft, we know that the equivalent twisting moment ( )

= √157.0212 + 401.342

= 430.96 Nm

Then, the diameter of the shaft, d

 16𝑇𝑒
d=∛ 𝜋𝜏

𝜏 =τu/ (F.S)

Where, τ = shear stress

, for the selected material 45 C 8 is 500Mpa

F. S= Safety factor = considering all the factors in the shaft it is taken as 5

𝜏 =τu/ (F.S)

= 500/5 = 100 N/mm2

3 16∗430.96
Then, d = √ 𝜋∗100

= 27.998 mm

So, we will estimate it to the nearest standard shaft diameter to 30 mm.

FORCE ANALYSIS OF SHAFT

a) Horizontal force on the shaft

Figure 4. 3 horizontal forces acting on the transmission shaft

Where Ra and Rb – are reaction forces at the support

Fb1 and Fb2 – are half the wight of the machine and seed combined
 Ft – is tangential force at the sprocket

From previous calculation, torque (T) = 430.96 Nm

2𝑇 2∗401.34
𝐹𝑡 = = = 5902.05 N
𝑑 0.136

𝐹𝑟 = 𝐹𝑡 * tanα = 5902.05 *tan20° = 2,148.17 N

∑𝐹𝑥 = 0

𝑅𝑎𝑥 + Ft + 𝑅𝑏𝑥 = 0

𝑅𝑎𝑥 + Ft = -𝑅𝑏𝑥

Σ𝑀𝑎 = 0

10Ft + 80 𝑅𝑏𝑥 =0

−10 ∗ 5902.05
𝑅𝑏𝑥 =
80

𝑅𝑏𝑥 = - 737.75N

The negative sign indicates the tangential force is in the opposite direction.

𝑅𝑎𝑥 + 𝑅𝑏𝑥 = 𝐹𝑡

𝑅𝑎𝑥 = 5902.05 - 737.75

𝑅𝑎𝑥 = 5,164.3 N

Moment acting at point C:

400mm

Mc
Figure 4. 4 moment acting on the section
Ra1
 𝑀𝐴 = 𝑀𝐵 = 0

𝑀𝑐 = - 𝑅𝑎𝑥 *400mm

= -5,164.3*0.4m

= 2065.72 Nm2 CW

b) Vertical forces acting on the shaft

Figure 4. 5 vertical forces acting on the transmission shaft

The weight of the shaft is about 5N

∑𝐹𝑦 = 0

𝑅𝑎𝑦 + 𝑅𝑏𝑦 = 𝐹𝑟 + mg +𝐹𝑏1 + 𝐹𝑏2 …………………. (**)

∑𝑀𝐴 = 0

10*𝐹𝑟 + 40*Mg + 15 ∗ 𝐹𝑏1 + 65 ∗ 𝐹𝑏2 = 𝑅𝑏2 ∗ 80

(10 ∗ 2148.17) + (40 ∗ 5) + (15 ∗ 196.2) + (65 ∗ 196.2) = 80 ∗ 𝑅𝑏2

37,377.7 = 80 ∗ 𝑅𝑏2
 𝑅𝑏𝑦 = 467.2 𝑁

Moment at point C

40
𝐹𝑡 𝐹𝑏1
1 5
0

M
Ray
Figure 4. 6 vertical forces acting on the transmission shaft

Fig 4.5 moment acting at point c

𝑀 𝑐 = 𝑅𝑎𝑦 *40 -(𝐹𝑡 ∗ 30) − 𝐹𝑏1 ∗ 25

= 98.831 NM CW

Then, maximum bending moment, 𝑀𝑐𝑚𝑎𝑥

𝑀𝑐𝑚𝑎𝑥 = √𝑀𝑐𝐻 2 + 𝑀𝑐𝑉 2

= √2065.722 + 98.8312
 = 2068.08 Nm

Therefore, the shaft diameter is 30 mm and the length of the shaft is 800 mm.

4.1.2 Design of Drive Wheel

Figure 4. 1b Simulation of drive wheel

Figure 4. 6vertical forces acting on the transmission shaft

Fig 4.6b shows stress analysis of drive wheel. The red area on the wheel indicates that a large
load is applied on that point.

Drive wheel is a power transmission component, which is used to transmit rotational movement
to the seed cup using a set of chain drives by converting linear motion of pushing effect of a
human force in to rotational movement. It is a wheel at the front of the planter in addition to two
back wheels used for driving the garlic planter.

It was observed that the diameter of power transmission wheels used for seed drills/planters
ranges from 30 to 70 cm. Diameter, having width 3 cm and thickness of 0.5 cm was provided
below the main frame of the machine. Twelve spikes (3.7 cm × 3.0 cm × 0.5 cm) were provided
on the outer periphery of the wheel to develop sufficient grip for power transmission. Brajesh
Nare et al., 2014
In order to adjust the plant spacing, the diameter of power transmission wheel was taken as 40
cm. The inner diameter of hub was taken equal to the diameter of the shaft i.e. 30 mm. On the
periphery of driving wheel 12 pegs of length 37 mm and width of 30 mm were provided to avoid
slippage of driving wheel during operation.

4.1.3 Design of Transmission shaft for seed metering mechanism

Determination of the maximum bending moment:

The figure below shows the load distribution on the driving seed metering mechanism shaft. The
maximum bending moment can be determined from the following expression.

R1 + R2 = W1 + W2 + W3 + W4 + W5 + W6

Since W1 = W2 = W3 = W4 = (weight of 1.291m chain size #40 + weight of 11 garlic cloves on

a single chain + weight of the spoon on the single chain) = (8.305N + 1.1N + 34.335N) = 43.74
N

We can assign the variables with W

Then

R1 + R2 = W + W6

Where W1: load exerted on the shaft by the sprocket

W2, W3, W4 and W5: total weight of the chain, garlic clove and spoon

W6: weight of the hopper material

R1 and R2: reactions at the support

R1 = W1 + W2 + W3 + W4 + W5 + W6 - R2

From computations, R1 =R2

Using the method of sectioning the following expressions were obtained for the bending moment
on different parts:

Bending moment 1:

From the shaft design calculation

Fr = 2148.17 N

Where Fr is the radial force exerted by the smaller sprocket on the seed metering mechanism
shaft

Mb1 = 0.01 m * 2148.17 N = 21.4817 Nm………………………….1

Mb2 = 0.01*W1 – 0.02*W2…………………………………………………….2

= 0.01*2148.17N - 0.02*43.74 N

= 21.4817N – 0.8748 N

= 20.6069N

Mb3 = 0.01*W1 – 0.02*W2 – 0.17*W3………………………………3

= 0.01*2148.17 - 0.02*43.74 N – 0.17*43.74 N

= 13.1711N counter clockwise

Mb4 = 0.01*W1 – 0.02*W2 – 0.17*W3 - 0.24*W6………………….4

= 13.1711N – 0.24*119.53485

= 106.36375N clockwise

Mb5 = 0.01*W1 – 0.02*W2 – 0.17*W3 - 0.24*W6 – 0.37*W4……………5

= -106.36375N – 0.37*43.74 N
 = 122.54755N clockwise

Mb6 = 0.01*W1 – 0.02*W2 – 0.17*W3 - 0.24*W6 – 0.37*W4 – 0.47*W5…………6

= - 122.54755N – 0.47*43.74 N

= 143.10535N clockwise

The maximum value in equation 1, 2, 3,4, 5 and 6 is taken as the maximum bending moment for
the shaft. From the computations, the bending moments are

Mb1 = 21.4817 Nm
Mb2 = 20.6069Nm

Mb3 = 13.1711Nm counter clockwise

Mb4 = 106.36375Nm clockwise

Mb5 = 122.54755Nm clockwise

Mb6 = 143.10535Nm clockwise

Therefore, the maximum bending moment from the computation is 143.10535NM.

4.1.4 Seed Box (Hopper)

Area of the hopper = ½ * (AB + DC) * AD

Volume of the hopper = Area of the hopper * Height between trapezium ends
a) b)

Fig 4.7a Seed hopper 3D Fig 4.7 b Simulation of seed hooper

Fig 4.7b shows that the simulation of seed hopper and the red area at the bottom of the hooper is
the force applied by 10 Kg of garlic to be planted.

Area of the hopper = ½ * (AB + DC) * AD

= ½ * (20 + 5) * 40

Area of the hopper = 500 cm2

Volume of the hopper = Area of the hopper * Height between trapezium ends

= ½ * (AB + DC) * AD * CE

= ½ * (20 + 5) * 40* 50

= 25,000 cm3

Density of garlic 0.57 g/cm3

 The actual volume of seed box which will be used to fill 70% of the hopper = Volume of the
internal hopper * 80%
= ½ * (20 + 5) * 40* 50*0.8

= 20,000 cm3

Capacity of hopper = The actual volume of seed box, cm3 * density of garlic plant g/cm3

= 20,000 cm3 * 0.57 g/cm3

= 11,400 g or 11.4 Kg

Weight of the hopper:

To calculate the weight of the hopper, first the surface area and the volume of the hopper
material must be determined.

Area of the hopper = 500 cm2

Volume of the hopper = Area of the hopper * tm

= 500 cm2 * 0.2 cm

Where tm is 0.2 cm (Thickness of the mild steel used)

= 100 cm3

Mass of the Hopper Materials,

The mass of the hopper material = Volume of the hopper * the density of mild steel

= 100 cm3 * 7.850 g/cm3

= 785 g or 0.785 kg

where the density of mild steel is 7.850 g/cm3

The weight of the hopper material = The mass of the hopper material * g

= 0.785 kg * 9.81m/s2

= 7.70085 N

where g is the acceleration due to gravity

The weight of the hopper is therefore 7.70085 N

The design analysis was calculated as the following.

 The volume of the hopper is calculated as 100 cm3.

 The capacity of this seed hopper is around 11.4 kg.
 The top and bottom dimension of the hopper was 20cm and 5 cm, respectively and the
depth of the hopper was 40 cm.

4.1.5 Design of Chain and Sprocket from the main wheel

 Fig 4.8 3D of chain and sprocket from the main wheel

From shaft design analysis:

N2 = 6.21 rpm

For an effective velocity ratio, the speed of rotation of smaller sprocket is N1 = 12 rpm (Devesh
Kumar 2017)

Power transmitted by the shaft: 260.995 watts or 0.26 kw

The velocity ratio of the chain drivers is given by:

𝑇2 𝑁1
𝑉. 𝑅 = =
𝑇1 𝑁2

Where N1= Speed of rotation of smaller sprocket in r.p.m

N2= Speed of rotation of larger sprocket in r.p.m

T1= Number of teeth on the smaller sprocket

T2= Number of teeth on the larger sprocket

12
𝑉. 𝑅 = = 1.93236715 ≈ 2
6.21

In order to have smooth operation, the minimum number of teeth on the smaller sprocket or
pinion must be taken appropriately for moderate speed and high speed. The number of teeth on
the smaller on the smaller sprocket plays an important role in deciding the performance of a
chain drive. A small number of teeth tends to make the drive noisy. A large number off teeth
makes chain pitch smaller which is favorable for keeping the drive silent and reducing shock,
centrifugal force and friction force.

From the above table, for the roller chain, the number of teeth on the smaller sprocket or pinion
(t1) for a velocity ratio of 2 are 27.
 𝑇2 𝑁1
𝑉. 𝑅 = =
𝑇1 𝑁2

𝑁1 10
𝑉. 𝑅 = 𝑇2 = 𝑇1 ∗ = 27 ∗ = 45
𝑁2 6

Service factor-SF- is a measure of periodically overload capacity at which a motor can operate
without damaging.

The service factor takes into consideration the effect of shocks and vibration on the power to be
transmitted. And it’s the product of K1, K2 and K3

1. Load factor (K1) = 1, for constant load

= 1.25, for variable load with mild shock

= 1.5, for heavy shock loads

2. Lubrication factor (K2) = 0.8, for continuous lubrication

= 1, for drop lubrication

= 1.5, for periodic lubrication

3. Rating factor (K3) = 1, for 8 hours per day

= 1.25, for 16 hours per day

= 1.5, for continuous service

The service factor (𝐾𝑠) and other factors (K1, K2 and K3) taken as follows.

Load factor: for variable load K1 = 1.25

Lubrication factor: for drop lubrication K2 = 1.5

Rating factor: for 8 hours per day K3 = 1

 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 𝐾𝑠 = 𝑘1 ∗ 𝑘2 ∗ 𝑘3 = 1.25 ∗ 1.5 ∗ 1 = 1.875

For the given application, the kW rating of the chain is determined by the following relationship:

(𝐾𝑤 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑) ∗ 𝐾𝑠
𝐾𝑤 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑖𝑛 =
𝐾1 ∗ 𝐾2

(0.260995) ∗ 1.875
𝐾𝑤 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑖𝑛 =
1.25 ∗ 1

𝐾𝑤 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑖𝑛 = 𝐾𝑤 = 0.3914925𝐾𝑤

The power rating for simple roller chains depending upon the speed of the smaller sprocket is
shown in the following table. Speed of our smaller sprocket was 12 rpm which is less than the
standard 100 r.p.m pinion type. Therefore, a metric 06B roller chain with 0.25Kw power is
selected from ISO standards.

Fig 4.9 roller chain terminologies

Dr

Where,

Pitch, P

Roller diameter, Dr

Minimum width of roller,

Breaking load
Then from the standard roller chain characteristics table, we can determine the values of the
parameters:

Pitch P: 9.525 mm, Roller diameter, Dr = 6.35 mm, Minimum width of roller, b = 5.72
mm, Breaking load, WB = 106 ∗ 𝑃2 = 106 ∗ 9.5252 = 9.616 ∗ 103 N

4.1.6 Power Transmission of the Driving wheel

Fig 4.10 FBD of power transmission of the driving wheel

Diameter of the ground wheel = 400mm

Distance traveled in one revolution (𝜋𝐷𝑁)= 𝜋 ∗ 400 ∗ 1= 1256.63mm

Sprocket speed ratio = the number of teeth on the driving sprocket (T1) / the number of teeth on
the driven sprocket (T2)
 45
Sprocket speed ratio = 27 = 1.66666667

Pitch Diameter of sprocket at main shaft = 182.1mm

Circumference of sprocket at main shaft (𝜋𝐷𝑁)= 𝜋 ∗ 182.1 ∗ 1 = 572.108mm

Chain length in one revolution of the ground wheel = 572.08mm*1.6666667 = 954mm

4.1.7 Power Transmission of the metering mechanism

For the designing of cup, the length of cup should be more than the maximum length of cloves.
The width of cup should be more than the width of clove. The height of cup should be slightly
less than the height of clove so that another clove cannot enter into the cup. As reported by Singh
and Yadav (2000), the garlic cloves have length, width and thickness as 2.99 cm, 0.9 cm and 0.9
cm respectively. According to these dimensions of garlic cloves the size of the seed metering
cups were selected. The length and width of cup was kept as 3.0 cm, and 1.0 cm respectively.
The height of cup was selected as 0.5 cm (along the length) and 0.9 cm (along the width). The
seed cup was fabricated with 1mm thick aluminum sheet.

The CAD model of seed metering mechanism was prepared using solid works and shown
appendix.

Taking an effective sprocket, 16 number of teeth for the driving and 24 number of teeth for the
driven sprocket with speed ratio 0.66, (Ningthoujam et al. 2016).
 Fig 4.11 dimension of the sprocket on the metering mechanism

The number of cells on metering device =

𝐼 = (𝑐 ∗ 𝑡)/𝑎

I = number of cells on the metering device

C =circumstances of drive wheel, mm

T = speed ratio (rive wheel shaft to metering shaft);

A = bulb to bulb spacing = 10cm or 100mm, (Craig, 1995)

Sprocket speed ratio = the number of teeth on the driving sprocket (T1) / the number of teeth on
the driven sprocket (T2)

𝑁𝐷 𝑇𝑀 24
= = = 1.5
𝑁𝑀 𝑇𝐷 16
Circumference of driving sprocket pitch diameter = 𝜋 * 96.774mm = 304.02mm

Then
𝐼 = (𝑐 ∗ 𝑡)/𝑎

304.02mm ∗ 1.5
𝐼= = 8.08236
100𝑚𝑚

Number of cells or cup was taken = 8

The eight number cups were fixed over a disc at equal interval along the periphery. Axle length
(35 cm) and diameter (18 mm) were kept same as provided by Singh and Yadav (2000) as no
problem was not reported about the axle.

Therefore, the distance between cell to cell was taken as 100mm.

4.1.8 Furrow opener

a) b)

Fig 4.12a 3D of furrow opener Fig 4.12 b stress analysis of furrow opener

Fig 4.12b shows that simulation of furrow opener and the red area is caused by the soil
resistance.

It is assumed that the draft force on the furrow opener is acting at a height of a from the bottom
of the furrow opener where, the h is total length of furrow opener and shank.

The minimum clearance H1 between the land surface and the lower edge of the frame was kept
at 200 mm. The height of tine (H) of furrow opener was calculated as (Varshney, et al., 2004):

H = amax + H1 + ∆H

Where,

amax = depth of tool = 11.5 cm

H1 = length of tine = 20.0 cm

∆H = length of tine used for fastening with frame = 4.0 cm

So, H = 11.5 + 20.0 + 4.0

H = 35.5 cm

The tine of the furrow opener was exposed first to bending due to soil resistance. The soil
resistance (Fx) is horizontal and acts in the axis of symmetry of shoe. The soil resistance was
assumed to be 3 to 5 times higher than actual average soil resistance (Pk) offered by the
particular soil. The value of the actual average soil resistance is obtained by the formula:

Fx = a × Ww × Pk.......................(5)

Where,

a = Effective working depth of tine = 5 cm

Ww= Effective working width of tine = 5 cm

Pk= Specific soil resistance for the medium soil

Specific soil resistance Pk when sowing to a depth of 15 cm under different soils is:

Light soil: 0.12 kg/ cm2

Medium soil: 0.15 kg/ cm2

Heavy soil: 0.20 kg/ cm2

Very heavy soil: 0.25 kg/cm2

Therefore,

Fx = 5 × 5 × 0.15 × 9.81 = 36.78 N

The soil resistance is assumed to be 3 to 5 times higher than actual average soil resistance (Fx)

Draft at the tip of tine (Dt) = 36.78 × 3 = 110.36 N

Moment arm length = (h-a) = (40 – 13.3) = 26.66 cm

Bending moment in shank = D (h-a) = 110.36 N×26.66cm

=29.42 Nm

Considering material cost factor of safety for the furrow opener is taken as 2

Therefore, maximum bending moment in shank = 29.42 Nm × 2 = 58.84 Nm

The section modulus of the shank can be computed from the following equations

𝑓𝑏 = (𝑀𝑏 ∗ 𝑋𝐶 )/ 𝐼

Where, f = Bending stress, N/mm2

I = Moment of inertia, mm4

M = Bending moment, N-mm

c = Distance from neutral axis to the point at which stress is determined, mm

Thus, section modulus (Z) can be computed by using formula

𝑀𝑏
𝑍=
𝑓𝑏

58.84 𝑁𝑚
𝑍=
56 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2

(fb= 56 N/ mm2 for mild steel)

𝑍 = 1050 𝑚𝑚3
Then section modulus of the furrow

𝑡 ∗ 𝑏2
𝑍=
6

considering availability in the market and workshop taking the width of the shank to be 30 mm

𝑡 ∗ 302
1050 =
6

𝑡 = 6 𝑚𝑚

Therefore, considering the factor of safety and availability of material in standard size, the
thickness of shank of furrow opener was selected as 10 mm.

The material selected for the furrow opener was ISI Grade C10 mild steel.

Suitability of the materials for the working conditions in service has an ultimate stress

𝜎𝑢 = 333 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 and yield stress of 𝛿𝑦 = 206𝑁/𝑚𝑚2.

Checking for safety

𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠(𝜎𝑢 )
𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦 =
𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠(𝑓𝑏 )

Thus f.o.s × fb = 2×56 N/ mm2= 112 N/ mm2≪ϭu = 333 N/mm2 therefore, the furrow opener

is too safe.

4.1.9 Determination of the push force of the planter

Figure below gives the free body diagram showing all the forces acting on the planter. The force
required to push the planter was determined according to using the following expressions. (O. A.
Ani et al.,2016)
 Fig 4.13 forces acting on the planter

Where:

 W – weight of planter
 P – planter push force
 Fx – horizontal soil resistance
 R – soil frictional resistance force
 𝜃 – angle between planter handle and the horizontal plane (300)
 ∅ - angle of friction (450)
 Σ𝐻 – summation of horizontal forces acting on the planter
 Σ𝑉 – summation of vertical forces acting on the planter

Σ𝐻 = 𝑃 cos 𝜃 − 𝐹𝑥 − 𝑅 cos 𝜙 = 0-------------(1)

Σ𝑉 = 𝑅 sin 𝜙 − 𝑃 sin 𝜃 − 𝑊 = 0----------------(2)

From equation (1),

𝑅 cos 𝜙+𝐹𝑥
𝑃= -----------------------(3)
cos 𝜃

Substituting equation (3) into equation (1),

 𝐹𝑥 tan 𝜃+𝑊
𝑅= -----------------(4)
(sin 𝜙−cos 𝜙 tan 𝜃)

Substitute their values into equation (4),

From previous calculation

𝑊 = 40 ∗ 9.81 = 392.4 𝑁

𝐹𝑥 = 36.78 𝑁

𝐹𝑥 tan 𝜃 + 𝑊
𝑅=
(sin 𝜙 − cos 𝜙 tan 𝜃)

(36.78 ∗ tan 30) + 392.4 𝑁

(sin 45 − cos 45 ∗ tan 30)

𝑅 = 138.4 𝑁

Substitute the R value into equation (3),

𝑅 cos 𝜙 + 𝐹𝑋
𝑃=
cos 𝜃

138.4 ∗ cos 45 + 36.78

𝑃=
cos 30

𝑃 = 117.25 𝑁

4.1.10 Design and analysis of main frame

Fig 4.14 3D of main frame

The frame, which is the skeleton of the planter, supports all other component parts of the planter.
It has to be rigid and strong as all parts are mounted on it. The two design factors considered in
the determination of the material required for the frame were weight and strength. As per design
square shaped pipe of alloy steel size having length 760mm of the bar were taken. The Frame is
subjected to torsion and bending due to induced draft. Design was based on the stresses produced
in the frame.

From previous calculation the soil resistance for Medium soil is equals to: 0.15 kg/ cm2.

We have Width of furrow opener = 5cm and depth of furrow opener at which draft force is

applied =h/3= a = 5 cm

Cross section of furrow = 5×5 = 25 cm2

= Draft = soil resistance (kg/cm2) × 25 cm2

=3.75 Kg

For 4-row planter there are four furrow openers are arranged in a single bar. Then the design is

based on the total stress produced in the bar.

Draft per furrow opener = 3.75kg

Total draft = 3.75×4 =15kg

Torque (T) on the square bar frame = total draft × ground clearance

Ground clearance = 20 cm

T =15× 20 =300kg-cm

In addition to the torque, bending moment would also be produced in the frame. Considering the

bar as simply Supported beam on the frame in between four furrow openers.

The reaction at each support was calculated as 3.75kg x 4/2 = 7.5 kg

The maximum bending moment in the frame can be calculated, as

𝑤𝐿
𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
4

Where W= total draft = total weight on the frame =15kg

L= total length of the bar = 76cm

Mmax= Maximum bending moment = 15 kg × 76cm/4=570 kg-cm

Equivalent torque due to torsion and bending moment (Khurmi and Gupta. 2005)

𝑇𝑒 = √𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 2 + 𝑇 2

Where,

Te= Equivalent torque, kg-cm = √5702 + 3002

= 644.127kg –cm
The maximum shear stress developed at the center of the tool frame was obtained by well-known
relationship (Khurmi and Gupta. 2005)

𝑓𝑠 𝑇𝑒
=
𝑅 𝐼

Where,

𝑓 s= shear stress at any section

R= distance of outer most section from natural axis

Te= equivalent torque produced

I =Polar moment of inertia

The maximum working stress for alloy steel can be taken as 210kg/cm2

which is occurred at the center of the frame. For square section having each side measuring (d)

𝑑4
𝐼 = 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑎 =
12

𝑑
𝑅=
2

𝑓𝑠 𝑇𝑒
=
𝑅 𝐼

Substitute their values:

644.127 ∗ 12
𝑑3 =
210 ∗ 2

d= 2.62 cm

Therefore, considering availability of the square bar section 40×40×3 mm was selected.
Checking for safe design

Material selected for the frame was ISI Grade alloy steel C14 and have ultimate stress of

600 kg/cm2.

𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 600

𝑓. 𝑜. 𝑠 = = = 2.857
𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 210

This implies the frame is safe in design.

4.1.11 Design of handle

 Fig 4.15 3D of handle

A hollow steel pipe with an external diameter of 2.56 cm and 1 mm wall thickness was selected
for making the handle. This pipe was selected, as it is easily available in the market, light in
weight, cheaper in cost and strong enough to bear the load. One end of the handle was attached
to the both sides of the front wheel for proper guidance. At the other end of the handle a cross
bar was mounted on both ends of which proper grips were provided to hold the planter. (D. K.
Kushwaha et al., 2020)

3. 4.2 Selection of standard and other securing components

1. Bearing selection and Specifications

Bearings are required at seed and fertilizer metering shafts and transmission sprockets

Bearing type; ball roller bearing

Dimensions; bore = 10 mm outside diameter = 20mm

2. Bolt and nut selection and specification

Bolts and nuts were required at seed metering cups to adjust them and to secure the furrow

openers with main frame.

Bolt type; hexagonal head bolt

Dimension; diameter M8 metric unit 8mm thread pitch =1.5 mm length =20mm thread

Length = 10m
4.3 COST ANALYSIS

No Item Quantity Dimension Cost

1 sheet metal 1 1000 × 1100 710 Birr per m

t = 2mm
2 Angle iron 1 45 × 45 × 1000 310 Birr per pcs
3 Rectangular hollow 1 4 × 4 × 7000 300 Birr per 6m
bar
t = 3 mm
4 U - bar 2 4 × 4 × 1200 450 birr

t = 3 mm
5 Flat plate 1 1100 × 1000 710 Birr per m

t = 2 mm
6 Bearing with housing 10 Boar diameter = 20 50 Birr per pcs
mm
7 Bicycle Sprocket with 12 Mountain bicycle
chain set
8 Carbon steel round 3 Diameter 30 × 1200 700 Birr per 6m
bar mm
9 Bolt and nut 1 M8 × 1.25 5 Birr per pcs
10 Bolt and nut 1 M10 × 1.25 5 Birr per pcs
11 Bolt and nut 1 M12 × 1.25 5 Birr per pcs
12 Steel 1 110cm ∅ =2.56cm 210 Birr per 6m

hollow round bars t= 2mm

13 wheel 3 Diameter = 40 mm 4010 ETB
 CHAPTER - FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4. CONCLUSION

The main objective of the project is to design and simulate a manually driven, ground wheel-
driven garlic planter capable of planting four rows of garlic cloves on each of the four raised
chains formed by four forward mounted furrowers, and as so far things are neatly presented one
can conclude that the target is achieved exhaustively and efficiently. Due to fragmented and
small land holdings and variable farmer typology, it is neither affordable not advisable to
purchase a machine for the planting of garlic. Since the majority of farmers are small and
marginal using animal as a source of power, effort has been made by doing design modification
on manual driven garlic planter.

 This machine have precise seed metering system using cup feed type seed metering
devices.
 The drawings were developed through computer aided design software SOLIDWORKS.
 The machine consists of power transmission system, seed and fertilizer box, cup feed
mechanism, delivery tubes, furrow covering device, and hand lever.
 When the average human pushing force is applied on the planter it directly pulls the
wheels of the machine. Power was transmitted from ground wheel through chain-sprocket
drive system to the gear and finally to the metering mechanism.
 The construction of the machine was made sturdy and light weight matching to the
pushing capacity of average human being.
 The weight of the developed machine is only 40 kg and its unit price 4010 Ethiopian birr.
5. RECOMMENDATION

Therefore, the following points are found remarkable to be recommended:

 As we mention before this planter can plant only garlic. So, it is not advisable use it for
planting other type of seeds but one can use by changing the cup size on the chain
according to the seed size.
 To prevent power transmissions parts from rust it is recommended to use lubrication
properly and timely.
 While this study provided a validated manufacturing process, cost analysis, and detail
design documentation for garlic planter, no direct validation of other types of planter was
attempted. A deep study is needed for validation of manufacturing process, cost analysis,
and detail design of other planters.
 The present project is done under manual driven garlic planter. In future,
 analysis shall be carried out for the motor driven garlic planter.
 Small scale manufacturer can take the design and fabricate the machine
 Two or three Farmer can buy and use this planter together
 The machine can operate at high speed so if farmers use this planter machine they can
plant a large area of garlic with short period of time.
 REFERENCES
1.Nare, B., Shrivastava, A.K., Naik, R.K. and Prakash, A., 2014. Design, development and
evaluation of self-propelled garlic (Allium Sativum L.) Clove Planter. Agricultural
Mechanization in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, 45(2), pp.74-79.

2.Gajakos, A.V., Saraf, V.V., Sneha, S. and Gandhi, R.D., 2015. Performance evaluation of
manually operated garlic planter. International Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 8(1),
pp.31-38.

El Shal, A.M. and Awny, A., 2019. Fabricating and Evaluating Performance of a Planter
Prototype for Planting Chinese Garlic Cloves. Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural
Engineering, 10(10), pp.605-612.

Morad, M.M., El-Sharabasy, M.M.A., Yehia, I. and Abdelgawad, F.A., 2012. DEVELOPMENT
AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF GARLIC-CLOVES PLANTER. Misr Journal of
Agricultural Engineering, 29(3), pp.993-1014.

Singh, H.J., De, D., Sahoo, P.K. and Iquebal, M.A., 2014. Development and Evaluation of Self-
propelled Multicrop Planter for Hill Agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 51(2),
pp.1-8.

Rathore, F., Chaturvedi, S. and Khandelwal, N.K., 2018. Comparative Study on Manually
Operated Onion Bulblet Planter over a Traditional Method of Planting. Current Journal of
Applied Science and Technology, pp.1-6.

Rathore, F. and Chaturvedi, S., 2018. Development and performance evaluation of manually
operated Potato planter. Quarterly Research Journal of Plant & Animal Sciences/Bhartiya Krishi
Anusandhan Patrika, 33(3).

Garg I K, Dixit A and Dogra B. 1998. Development of a Manually Operated Single Row Garlic
Planter. Agricultural Engineering Today, 22(5-6): 14-15.
Benjaphragairat J and Sakurai H Ito N. 2010. Design and control of metering system and furrow
openers for garlic planter. International Agricultural Engineering Journal. 19(2): 39-47.

R.S. KHURMI and J.K. GUPTA (2005) EURASIA PUBLISHING HOUSE (PVT.) LTD. RAM
NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110 055
Robert L.Norton. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts
Appendix