Cocos Nucifera Testa Peeling Machine

Jan Lorenz Buling1, Lance Darren Galorort1, Dave Torino1

1
Mechanical Engineering Program, College of Engineering Education
University of Mindanao, Matina, Davao City, Philippines
1
jbuling@umindanao.edu.ph
1
lgalorport@umindanao.edu.ph
1
dtorino@umindanao.edu.ph
 I. INTRODUCTION
Coconut (Cocos Nucifera) that belongs to a family
Arecaceae which is an abundant fruit in the Philippines. Parts
of the coconut consists of Endocarp (Shell), Epicarp and
Mescarp (Husk), Testa (Brown Skin), Endosperm (Meat and
Water). Coconut can be separated by two types, Matured
(Green) and Unmatured (Light Orange). Different types of
coconut also have different texture and hardness of its testa
and meat. The most time consuming and tiring process is the
removal of coconut testa and is very delicate and crucial that
is often regarded as a drudgery process [1]. Testa is the brown production very inconsistent due to human fatigue and human
part wrap coconut kernel, i.e., brown skin. It is acquired from resource losses from time to time.
coconut operation assiduity as a labor through paring of wet
coconut during the preparation of production like desiccated
coconut, coconut milk and virgin coconut oil. [2]
Peeling of fruit is cohering of separating some part the skin proponents will design the machine that peels the whole
which normally guard the fruits from the meat [3][4]. Peeling
is the preliminary and key phase of fruit and vegetables after
harvest storage. The peeling stage is highly dependent on the
quality of processed fruits and vegetables. Poor management
of peeling results in costly finished products due to high
peeling losses and poor finished product quality [5]. Peeling is
done in extension to cleaning to remove the exterior skin.
Rhizomes are peeled only on the unbroken sides and enough
of the skin within the fingers remain unharmed [6]. Peeling
have been accomplished as far back, but the instrument for
peeling started from the usage of stone and honed edged thing
such knife that makes peeling in a voluminous bunch is stodgy
[7].
Mechanical Peeling has various types and methods
interacting directly on the fruits skin for its removal.
Commonly used mechanical peelers includes rollers, knives,
milling cutters and abrasive devices [8]. Fruits peelers for
pineapples have developed as a peeler and coring machine
that uses two cylindrical blades to simultaneously peel and
remove its core incorporated by a pneumatic cylinder interface
for its automatic feeding process to the peeler [9]. Green
Mango specifically “Carabao” variety is peeled using abrasive
drum and a blade peeler that uses a planetary gear system for A. Conceptual Framework
its operation [10]. Some research is focused on available
materials locally and is low cost on the project design and
manufacturing for simple peeling of a sugar cane using blades
subdued in a hollow shaft [11]. Abrasive coated rotating drum
used for peeling operation with peeling efficiency 78% and
peeling loss of 6%. Other researchers also design an automatic
fruit peeling machine, where the peeling is achieved by
placing the fruit between the revolving fruit holders,
horizontally peeling. The system uses knife or blade,
abrasive, rollers, milling cutters or rotary cutters
depending on the method used for peeling However, rotary
cutters are more versatile for unique or uneven surfaces.
[12].
Peelers especially in uneven surfaces and irregular
shaped fruits is inconsistent in its peeling depth [13], [14].
Mechanical peeling for hard skinned fruits is proved to be
inflexible due to inconsistency of its weight, size and shape.
Depending on the application of abrasive and cutting forces,
mechanical peeling using an abrasive cutter comb is carried
out. It is possible to split the peeling process into two main
stages, splitting the skin and scraping to extract the peel as
chips. Such operations are the main energy costs in this
process, The loss of energy from source to brush holder is
believed to be independent of the key peeling cycle [15] . The
process of peeling the testa of the coconut is a very delicate
ang drudgery process and is mostly done manually by coconut
producers around the country. This is the causes the
The purpose of this study is to make an automated Cocos
Nucifera Testa Peeling Machine to further increase the
production rate and consistently. To achieve this the
deshelled coconut precisely and quickly then, fabricate the
Cocos Nucifera Peeler Machine design. In addition to this,
tests will be conducted to determine its time of peeling and
peeling efficiency. Lastly, the researchers will present cost
analysis of the machine.
This study is will significantly help manual testa peeling
processing of coconut producers in the industry by integrating
automation using the machine. Manual peeling uses many
human resource and human exhaustion is the main reason
production rate is unstable. Thus, eliminating human
exhaustion in this process will greatly benefit the production
rate and profit of the producers.
This study is focused and limited only to peeling coconut
testa one at a time and retain the ball shape of the coconut
meat after peeling. The machine cannot feed deshelled
coconut by itself and should be feed manually before starting
the machine for the peeling process. Additionally, the machine
is not capable of simultaneous peeling in a single process.
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Fig. 1 is the conceptual framework of the Cocos Nucifera
Testa Peeling Machine. The input is the deshelled coconut
that have only testa and coconut meat left. The process
consists of designing, fabricating and conducting test and
evaluation of the peeling machine for the output, Cocos
Nucifera Testa Peeling Machine.
 Design of the
cocos nucifera
testa peeling
machine
 Deshelled
Coconut  Fabrication of
the peeling
machine
 Test and
Evaluation
 INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Fig. 1 Conceptual Framework

B. Materials and Resources

The following materials that will be  Cocos
used for the fabrication of the machine Nucifera Testa
are stainless steel (Type 316 Austenitic Peeling
chromium nickel alloy) for the claws, Machine
cold rolled steel (SAE 1045) for shafts,
Galvanize iron plain sheet and
Aluminium sheet for the body, and
abrasive foam (Hi-flex pads) .
C. Methods and Procedures
Trade off analysis is conducted on
two designs. After the tabulation the design 1 resulted as the
winning design as shown on appendix A.
The machine will be designed using solidworks software.
The abrasive claws will be designed with a curvature that fits
around the deshelled coconut covered with abrasive foam for
peeling and a small spring between the circular plate and the
claws to make the claws adjust according to the shape of the
coconut and have a firm grip in preparation of the peeling Fig. 2 Machine Prospect Design
process by attaching it to a shaft for rotary motion. The
bottom claw shaft will be connected to a pulley directly to the Two sets of claws will be fabricated using stainless steel
motor. For the peeling process, the bottom claws will serve as with abrasive foams each to surround the deshelled coconut
the peeler that can rotate clockwise and counter clockwise evenly. A V-belt pulley will be the medium of transmission
while the upper claws will hold the deshelled coconut in from the motor directly to the bottom claw shaft. The bench of
place. The 3D design is as shown on Fig. 2. the machine will be fabricated using stainless steel and the
body of the machine is made from steel.

The test and evaluation will be conducted by peeling a set

number of deshelled coconuts then determine and count the
number of coconuts that is well peeled and undamaged. The
efficiency will be determined by using this formula:
No. peeled and undamaged coconuts over No. of total
deshelled coconuts peeled multiplied to 100 percent.

REFERENCES

[1] A. K. N., “Studies on Pre-Processing Techniques of Coconut and

Optimization to Separate Coconut Meat from the Testa,” Int. J.
Pure Appl. Biosci., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 532–543, 2019.
[2] P. Appaiah, L. Sunil, P. K. Prasanth Kumar, and A. G. Gopala
Krishna, “Composition of coconut testa, coconut kernel and its oil,”
JAOCS, J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc., vol. 91, no. 6, pp. 917–924, 2014.
[3] M. K. S. Mazlina, A. . N. Aliaa, and H. N. Hidayati, “Design and
Development of an Apparatus for Grating and Peeling Fruits and
Vegetables,” Am. J. Food Technol. 5, 2010.
[4] P. K. S. Nahata, “Design and Fabrication of Automatic Fruit
Peeling Machine,” vol. 3, pp. 1328–1332, 2017.
[5] B. Emadi, M. H. Abbaspour-Fard, and P. K. D. V Yarlagadda,
“Mechanical peeling of pumpkins. Part 2: Modeling of peeling
process,” J. Food Eng., vol. 89, no. 4, pp. 453–459, 2008.
[6] G. V. Prasanna Kumar, C. B. Khobragade, R. Yadav, and K. Raza,
“Development and Performance Evaluation of an Electric Motor
 Powered Ginger Washing-Cum-Peeling Machine,” Int. J. Curr.
Microbiol. Appl. Sci., vol. 8, no. 02, pp. 722–737, 2019.
[7] P. Note, “Development of cassava peeling machine using an
abrasive mechanism,” vol. 21, pp. 1–6, 2018.
[8] M. R. Tapia, G. A. G. Aguilar, J. F. A. Zavala, M. Shafi, and M. W.
Siddiqui, “Washing , Peeling and Cutting of Fresh-Cut Fruits and
Vegetables,” pp. 57–78, 2015.
[9] B. G. Shinde, P. Viraj, B. Ankit, S. Vishal, T. Asif, and E.
Abhishek, “DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PINEAPPLE
PEELER AND CORING,” pp. 728–730, 2017.
[10] R. Donado, L. H. Tan, D. M. Fernandez, E. J. Calilung, D. A.
Francia, and E. P. Dadios, “Design, fabrication and testing of a
semi-auto green mango peeling machine,” 8th Int. Conf. Humanoid,
Nanotechnology, Inf. Technol. Commun. Control. Environ. Manag.
HNICEM 2015, no. December 2015, 2016.
[11] V. Tagare, V. Patil, S. Talaskar, and S. Wadar, “Design and
manufacturing of sugar cane peeling machine,” Int. J. Adv. Sci.
Tech. Res., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 70–83, 2013.
[12] J. O. F. Mechanical, “Design and Fabrication of Typical Pipe
Cutting Machine,” vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 101–119, 2015.
[13] B. Emadi, M. H. Abbaspour-Fard, and P. K. D. V Yarlagadda,
“Mechanical peeling of pumpkins. Part 1: Using an abrasive-cutter
brush,” J. Food Eng., vol. 89, no. 4, pp. 448–452, 2008.
[14] V. K. SINGH, “Testing and evaluation of Pedal operated potato
peeler,” Int. J. Agric. Eng., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 465–467, 2017.
[15] B. Emadi, “Experimental studies and modelling of innovative
peeling processes for tough-skinned vegetables,” 200
Trade off Analysis : WEIGHTS OF CRITERIA

Use the following for concept selection:

1 Equal
2 Moderate
3 Strong
4 very strong
5 extremely strong

Use the following for concept Scoring:

Values Interpretation
1 i and j are equally important
2 i is slightly more important than j
3 i is more important than j
4 i is strongly more important than j
5 i is absolutely more important than j

Constraints:

A. Manufacturability
B. Economic
C. Sustainability

A B C
A 1/1 2/1 2/3
B 2/3 1/1 2/3
C 3/2 3/1 1/1
Squaring the matrix

0.6 0.6
1 2 7 1 2 7
0.67 1 0.67 0.67 1 0.67
1.5 3 1 1.5 3 1

Sum Weight(%)

3.345 6.01 2.68 12.035 31.224

= 2.345 4.35 1.789 = 8.484 22.011
5.01 9 4.015 18.025 46.765

38.544 100

Manufacturability 31.224 %
Criteria:

A. availability of the materials

B. easy to build
C. Lesser production cost

A B C
A 3/3 2/3 3/2
B 3/2 3/3 3/2
C 4/3 4/2 2/2

Squaring the matrix

1.
1 0.667 5 1 0.667 1.5
1.5 1 1.5 1.5 1 1.5
 1.33 2 1 1.33 2 1

Sum Weight(%)

3.996 4.334 4.001 12.331 27.949

= 4.995 5.001 5.25 = 15.246 34.557
5.66 4.887 5.995 16.542 37.494
44.119 100

Sustainability 46.765 %

Criteria:
A. Life span
B. Maintenance
C. Performance

A B C
A 4/4 4/3 4/3
B 2/4 2/2 2/3
C 4/3 3/2 4/4

Squaring the matrix

1 1.33 1.33 1 1.33 1.33

0.5 1 0.667 0.5 1 0.667
1.33 1.5 1 1.33 1.5 1
 Sum Weight(%)

3.434 4.655 3.547 11.636 38.612

= 1.887 2.666 1.999 = 6.552 21.741
3.41 4.769 3.769 11.948 39.647

30.136 100
 Appendix A: Trade off Analysis

During the designing process trade off analysis has been done on research constraints. The
following are manufacturability which covers the availability of the materials, Easy to build and Lesser
production cost, economic which highlight the lesser production cost, and finally sustainability which
highlight the life span, performance and maintenance of the machine.

To indicate the importance of each research constraints, the proponents used Pugh matrix.
Further comparisons between the two designs were weighed according to the used constraints that were
formulated during the research.

Design Concepts
Constraints

Weight (%)

Pugh Concept Selection Weight

Matrix (%) Design Design
Score Score
1 2

8.727
4 0.349 4 0.349
Availability of the materials
Manufacturability

3 0.324 4 0.432
Easy to build 10.79
Selection Criteria

31.224 11.707 3 0.351 4 0.468

Lesser production cost

0.44
Economic

Affordability 22.011 2
2 0.44

22.011

Life span 18.057 4 0.722 3 0.542

Sustainability

Maintenance 10.167 2 0.203 2 0.203

46.765
4 2 0.371
Performance 18.541 0.741

TOTAL SCORE 100 22 21

 WEIGHTED SCORE 100 3.13 2.805

Design one uses gear while design two uses pulley as its mechanism. Trade off analysis is being

executed and shows that the design two is not efficient in removing the testa because of its horizontal in

shape bed, and it is also the reason why it cannot hold the coconut effectively and efficiently. Design two

is also tricky and not friendly to operate for less skilled operator. Design one and two has equal used of

material and capacity of motor used. Trade off analysis shows that a vertical axis type of design will be

implemented based on its capability in removing testa efficiently. Figure is given below, figure a design

one, figure b design two.

Figure A: Design 1 Figure B: Design 2