File n2

Addis Ababa University
Addis Ababa institute of Technology

School of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Design of a Three Wheel, Self-propelled, Barley and Wheat Reaper and

Binder Machine
A Project Submitted to School of Undergraduate Studies of Addis Ababa University in
Partial Fulfillment for BSc in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
(Mechanical Design Stream)
December 31, 2018

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Design of a Three Wheel, Self-propelled, Barley and Wheat Reaper and Binder Machine
2019
Acknowledgement
Abstract
Barley and Wheat crops are widely harvested in different regions of Ethiopia, but harvesting machine is
not been practiced, instead the farmers use a traditional harvesting methods to harvest this crops.
Therefore, crop harvesting is the important part in agricultural mechanization. The use of reaper binder
technology in developing countries are to minimize the product cost which will be result in economic
development of agricultural production. The main objective of this project is to design a self-propelled
reaper binder machine with minimum cost and less complex mechanism.
To realize this project we are collecting different data from the typical farmers to know the crops property
in detail and this leads to understand the harvesting problems. Once the problem is identified, we are
setting the objective of the project. Different journals point of view /literature review/ was done and
through this we can generate different concepts and selecting the best concept by screening all of them.
By following the product design method from the geometry analysis, force analysis and strength analysis
to selection of standards. The analysis is to be done by using Finite Element Methods software. To do this
the 2D and 3D models will be developed in Solidwork software.
AAU/AAIT/SMIE ii
2019
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................. ii
Chapter One .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem Statement .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Objective .......................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.1 General objective: ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.2 Specific objectives: ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Research Methodology .................................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Scope and Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................................. 5
1.7 Work plan ........................................................................................................................................ 6
1.8 Budget Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter Two .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Literature review ................................................................................................................................... 8
Chapter Three ..................................................................................................................................... 16
Concept Generation............................................................................................................................. 16
3.1 Target product specification.......................................................................................................... 16
3.2 Product development ..................................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Concept Generation ....................................................................................................................... 20
3.3.1 Alternative concepts on the power transmission or flow ........................................................... 20
3.3.2 Alternative concepts on the cutter bar actuation ....................................................................... 24
3.4 Concept selection ........................................................................................................................... 28
3.4.1 Scoring based on the power transmission .................................................................................. 29
3.4.2 Scoring on cuter bar actuation mechanism ................................................................................ 30
3.5 System design ................................................................................................................................. 31
Chapter Four ....................................................................................................................................... 33
Design of Parts ..................................................................................................................................... 33
4.1 Geometry analysis .......................................................................................................................... 33
4.2 Force Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 35
4.2.1 Cutter design ............................................................................................................................... 35
4.2.2 Forces acting on cutter bar of a reaper ...................................................................................... 36
AAU/AAIT/SMIE iii
2019
4.2.3 Engine selection (standard) ........................................................................................................ 39

4.3 Design of power transmission element .......................................................................................... 41
4.3.1 Design of the flat belt to drive the cutter bar and finger conveyors from the engine ............... 41
4.3.2 Design of the first reduction belt to drive the main shaft .......................................................... 44
4.3.3 Design of belt to drive the finger conveyors ............................................................................... 47
4.3.4 Design of belt to drive the binder ............................................................................................... 49
4.3.5 Design of sprocket and chain to drive the wheel ........................................................................ 52
4.4 Shaft design .................................................................................................................................... 55
4.4.1 Wheel axle ................................................................................................................................... 57
4.4.2 Main shaft ................................................................................................................................... 62
4.5 Finger Conveyor design ................................................................................................................. 69
4.6 Standard elements selection .......................................................................................................... 73
4.6.1 Bearing on the main shaft ........................................................................................................... 73
4.6.2 Wheel axle bearing...................................................................................................................... 75
References ............................................................................................................................................ 76
AAU/AAIT/SMIE iv
2019
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Harvesting is the first and major post-harvest operation for separation, processing and storage of grains
and harvesting of crop by machines is an important part of mechanized agriculture. At present, developed
countries all over and some developing countries are using automatic combine harvester for harvesting
crop. As a medium grade technology, many developing countries are using reaper for harvesting to
minimize production cost, and are thereby, making agricultural production economical. [1]
The harvesting of crops in our country Ethiopia is traditionally done by manual methods by using
instruments like sickle. All these traditional methods involve drudgery and consume long time. [2]
Therefore, this manual method is the reason of low agricultural production and since our economy is
mainly based on agriculture it retard our economic development. So it is necessary to introduce
mechanized agriculture in order to reduce the required labor and time and improve production.
Mechanized agriculture is the process of using agricultural machinery to mechanize the work of
agriculture.
The reaper and binder machine we are going to design will greatly increase farm worker productivity. The
machine is also vital since there is less time for harvesting to prevent the crop from damage by rain,
which increases the labour input to complete the harvesting process on time. Due to shortage of labour
harvesting is delayed and sometime whole crop is damaged due to weather hazards. Therefore the reaper
binder will avoid this problem and enable to complete the harvesting and binding operation with less time
and labour requirement witch intern increase agricultural production. The machine we are going to design
is:
▶ Multi-functional. This reaper and binder machine can be used for both wheet and barley.
▶ With good space utilization: the reaper-binder machine has a compact structure and small size.
▶ User-friendly i.e. it is easy to use
▶ More stable and safe with optional working row.
▶ Highly reliabile and consumes less fuel It also uses advanced technology which makes the crop binder
has good binding ability and low loss rate.
.
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 1
2019
1.2 Problem Statement

There is scarcity of labor forces (for example from observation in Dangila and Ali round Bale Robe
during the harvesting period the rain starts early which can destroy the crop before it is harvested from the
farm. Due to this the cost of labor is very high to complete the harvesting with in the short period of time)
in the farm sectors even if there is a gradual increase in the population number. Since harvesting of crops
manually is tedious, time consuming and less productive some machine should be adopted to increase the
productivity of the farmers. The reaper binder machines available now are somewhat expensive and not
affordable by local farmers. When we see most farmers they owns 1-2 hectare of farm land and produce
twice a year usually. These famers produces 20-25 Kuntal per hectare and sells 1200 ETB per Kuntal on
average. But the whole money the farmer get by selling the product is not their income. They buy
fertilizers, pesticides, there are house hold expenditures and labour cost for harvesting, and when all of
this costs are added it makes the farmer unable to buy the machine. Therefore this project focus on how to
minimize the cost of the machine and make it affordable to local farmers and how to make it less
complex. It is very essential to bring a machine which is cost effective, compact and easy to use for low
end farmers.
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 2
2019
1.3 Objective
1.3.1 General objective:

The general objective of this project is:
 To design a three wheel, self-propelled, barley and wheat reaper and binder machine.
1.3.2 Specific objectives:
The specific objectives are:
 To study the properties of some cereal crops
 To develop different concepts and alternatives of the machine
 To do the detail analysis of the machine
 2D and 3D modeling using solid works or catia
 To conclude and recommend ideas based on the analysis of the system
 Simulation using solid works
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 3
2019
1.4 Research Methodology

Some of the instruments used to achieve the above objectives are
a) Literature Review
The literature review is based on data available from internet sources and books.
b) Modeling and Simulation of reaper binder machine
The 2D and 3D model and simulation of the machine will be done by using solid works and the analysis
is done by finite element method using ANSYS software.
c) Results, Discussion, Conclusion, Recommendation and Future work
After the total analysis is completed we will reach at the final results, and discussion and conclusions will
be drawn based on the result. Some recommendations will be suggested based on the conclusion.
1.5 Scope and Limitations

Scope
The scope of this project is design of reaper binder machine to solve problems of harvesting and binding
the crops, and to decrease human power and time spend to do the work.
 Discuss the reaper binder machine used in a farming family
 Discuss the cutting mechanism, capacity and analysis of some design features
 Check the draft and power requirement for this machine
 Discuss the speed of grain conveyor and time of harvest and binding
 Modeling the whole machine using solid work or catia software
 Simulating the modeled machine by solid works software
 Concluding and recommending based on results of the analysis done
 Discuss the properties of some crops.
Limitation
Since the reaper and binder machine uses an engine to drive the whole system, there will be some
vibration. And we have no enough time and budget.
The following issues are not addressed in our work.
 Dynamic analysis of the vibration of the engine

 The manufacturing of the machine
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 4
2019
1.6 Significance of the Study

According to different studies the economy of our country is mainly based on agriculture and most of the
people are farmers. The usual manual harvesting mechanism is not only tedious and time consuming but
also source of low production and less economic development of agricultural production. The complexity
and cost of the reaper binder machine makes it an affordable for local farmers. Therefore designing the
machine in less complex and simple may will solve the problem.
Making a prototype is also somewhat costly, tedious and time consuming. Therefore, modeling and
simulating using a software will make it easy to understand and also the needed result can be found
without requiring much time.
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 5
2019
1.7 Work plan

Where it be Responsible
Task Name Duration Start Finish
Performed? for task
Jan 21, Feb 4, Design group
Concept generation 2 weeks SMiE
2019 2019
Analysis and Interpretation Feb 8, Apr 5, Design group
8 weeks SMiE
2019 2019
Modeling the 2D and 3D Design group
model of the reaper binder
machine by Solid Work or Apr 8, May 1,
3 weeks SMiE
Catia software. 2019 2019
May 2, May 15, Design group

Simulation using solid 2019 2019
works software. 2 weeks SMiE
Discussion and Conclusion May 16, May 23, SMiE Design group
1 weeks
of Results 2019 2019
Recommendation and May 24, May 31, SMiE Design group
1 week
Future Works 2019 2019
Documentation of the Design group
June 01, June 08,
1 week Printing House
Thesis 2019 2019
Submission of the Thesis 1 week - - SMiE Design group
Presentation 1 week - - SMiE Design group
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 6
2019
1.8 Budget Plan

The following table summarizes the proposed budget for this thesis paper.
No Task Name Unit Qua Unit rate Total cost Remark

ntity (ETB) (ETB)
1 Communication (Mobile phone

card, internet) ETB - - 250
2 Purchasing of writing materials
(pen, paper, exercise books) ETB - - 300
3 Transportation cost ETB - - 100
4 Printing and Documentations ETB - - 200
8 Sub total ETB - - 850
9 Miscellaneous cost (17%) ETB - - 144.5
10 Contingency cost (23%) ETB - - 195.5
11 Grand Total ETB - - 1190
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 7
2019
Chapter Two
Literature review
Literature review
The purpose of grain harvesting is to recover grains from the field and separate them from the rest of the
crop material in a timely manner with minimum grain loss while maintaining highest grain quality. The
methods and equipment used for harvesting depend upon the type of grain crop, planting method, and
climate. (Eng. principle of Agr. machine) Harvesters are one of the most economically important labor
saving inventions, significantly reducing the fraction of the population that must be engaged in
agriculture.
It is believed that either Romans or the Belgae Gallics before them, invented a simple mechanical reaper
that cut the ears without the straw and was pushed by oxen (Naturalis Historia XVIII,296). This device
was forgotten in the Dark Ages, during which period reapers reverted to using scythes and sickles to
gather crops.
Before the 18th and 19th century, people produced their food, clothing, and crops mostly by hand and
using small tools. This often required much time and energy. The Industrial Revolution brought about
change in the way goods were produced. There were several new inventions that allowed for the mass
production of products, especially in the field of agriculture. One such invention was the mechanical
reaper [3].
For hundreds of years, farmers and field workers had to harvest crops by hand using a sickle, scythe,
cradle or manual mowers then manually flailed or beaten to break the bond of the grain with the stalk,
then winnowed to separate the grain from material other than grain. In the developing world, these
practices or the use of small stationary threshers are still in use for grain harvesting.
A sickle is a curved, hand-held agricultural tool typically used for harvesting grain crops before the
advent of modern harvesting machinery.
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 8
2019
Fig 1. a)sicle b) scythe

The inside of the curve is sharp, so that the user can swing the blade against the base of the crop, catching
it in the curve and slicing it at the same time. Scythe is a similar tool with the sickle used to harvest grain
crops. The most noticeable difference between a sickle and the scythe is the shape of the blade of which
the Scythe blade is more linear whereas a sickle blade is more in the shape of a C with a point at the top.
Cradle is a more developed tool for reaping and harvesting. It consists of an arrangement of fingers
attached by a light frame work to the snatch of a scythe. Its purpose is to gather the straw as it is cut and
deposit it in a swath. At the end of the cutting stroke, the cradle is tilted to drop the straw in a pile. Also,
substantially more grain can be cut in a day with the cradle. However, loss due to shattering (grain
dislodged from heads due to shock) is greater with the cradle which makes to continue using the sickle to
harvest grain. Reapers are harvesting-machines used for cutting grain-crops. They either deliver the grain
to one side in gavels ready to bind into sheaves, or elevate the gavels upon a platform where two
operators bind them into sheaves by hand.
Fig 2. Cradle
Thomas Dobbs (actor) of Birmingham invents a reaping machine in 1814, which consists of a circular
saw or sickle, the grain is drawn or fed up to the saw by means of a pair of rollers.
Patrick Bell of Scotland created a reaper that used a revolving reel, cutting knife and canvas conveyor in
1828. This machine was used around his county and some may have been exported, but the device was
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 9
2019
never patented. One of Bell's reaping machines is preserved in the National Museum of Rural Life in
Scotland.
Fig 3. Patrick Bell’s reaper

Another mechanical reaper was invented by Cyrus McCormick in 1831. This machine was used by
farmers to harvest crops mechanically [3].
The 19th century saw several inventors in the United States claim innovation in mechanical reapers. The
various designs competed with each other, and were the subject of several lawsuits
Obed Hussey in Ohio patented a reaper in 1833, the Hussey Reaper (Follet L. Green, ed. (1912)). Made
in Baltimore, Maryland, Hussey's design was a major improvement in reaping efficiency. The new reaper
only required two horses working in a non-strenuous manner, a man to work the machine, and another
person to drive. In addition, the Hussey Reaper left an even and clean surface after its use.
Fig.4 Obed Hussey reaper

The McCormick Reaper was designed by Robert McCormick in Walnut Grove, Virginia. However, Robert
became frustrated when he was unable to perfect his new device. His son Cyrus asked for permission to
try to complete his father's project. With permission granted Bowman, Jeffrey (2006) the McCormick
Reaper was patent (U.S. Patent X8, 277) by his son Cyrus McCormick in 1837 as a horse-drawn farm
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 10
2019
implement to cut small grain crops (Daniel, Gross; Forbes Magazine Staff (August 1997) This
McCormick reaper machine had several special elements:
 a main wheel frame
 projected to the side a platform containing a cutter bar having fingers through which reciprocated a
knife driven by a crank
 upon the outer end of the platform was a divider projecting ahead of the platform to separate the
grain to be cut from that to be left standing
 a reel was positioned above the platform to hold the grain against the reciprocating knife to throw it
back upon the platform
 the machine was drawn by a team walking at the side of the grain (Agricultural Machinery in the
1800's")
Fig.5 the McCormick Reaper

Cyrus McCormick claimed that his reaper was actually invented in 1831, giving him the true claim to the
general design of the machine. Over the next few decades the Hussey and McCormick reapers would
compete with each other in the marketplace, despite being quite similar.
In 1861, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a ruling on the invention of the polarizing
reaper design. It was determined that the money made from reapers was in large part due to Obed
Hussey.
Although the McCormick reaper was a revolutionary innovation for the harvesting of crops, it did not
experience mainstream success and acceptance until at least 20 years after it was patented by Cyrus
McCormick. This was because the McCormick reaper lacked a quality unique to Obed Hussey's reaper.
Hussey's reaper used a saw like cutter bar that cut stalks far more effectively than McCormick's. Only
once Cyrus McCormick was able to acquire the rights to Hussey's cutter-bar mechanism (around 1850)
did a truly revolutionary machine emerge (Olmstead, Alan L. (June 1975). Other factors in the gradual
uptake of mechanized reaping included natural cultural conservatism among farmers (proven tradition
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 11
2019
versus new and unknown machinery); the poor state in which many new farm fields were in, including
rocks, stumps, and uneven soil, which made the lifespan and operability of a reaping machine
questionable; and some amount of fearful Luddism among farmers that the machine would take away
jobs, most especially among hired manual labourers ("Jo Anderson". Richmond Times-Dispatch)
Even though McCormick is credited as the "inventor" of the mechanical reaper, he based his work on that
of many others, including Roman, Scottish and American men, more than two decades of work by his
father, and the aid of Jo Anderson, a slave held by his family ("Jo Anderson". Richmond Times Dispatch).
Reapers in the late 19th and 20th century
After the first reapers were developed and patented, other slightly different reapers were distributed by
several manufacturers throughout the world. The Champion (Combined) Reapers and Mowers, produced
by the Champion Interest group (Champion Machine Company, later Warder, Bushnell & Glessner,
absorbed in IHC 1902) in Springfield, Ohio in the second half of the 19th century, were highly successful
in the 1880s in the United States ("William N. Whiteley") Springfield is still known as "The Champion
City".
Fig.6 champion reaper

Generally, reapers developed into the 1872 invented reaper-binder, which reaped the crop and bound it
into sheaves. By 1896, 400,000 reaper-binders were estimated to be harvesting grain and bananas. This
was in turn replaced by the swather and eventually the combine harvester, which reaps and threshes in
one operation.
Around the start of the twentieth century animal drawn machines, “combines,” were developed that
integrated cutting, threshing, and separating wheat and small grains. A reaper has been designed and
fabricated at the University at the Agriculture, Faisalabad Pakistan. This was a 5kw gasoline engine fitted
self-propelled reaper (without conveyor) can harvest a hectare in 2.5hours, and is equally effective for
wheat, rice and forage crops [4].
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 12
2019
Fig 7 Reaper
In Central European agriculture reapers were – together with reaper-binders – common machines until
the mid-20th century.
A tractor front mounted reaper has been developed in 1980, at Agricultural Mechanization Research
Institute (AMRI), Multan, Pakistan [5].
The drive for its power requiring mechanism is drawn through the shaft with the help of V-belt drive. The
mechanism is hydraulically through the 3 point linkage and has a field capacity of 0.5 ha/hr. The vertical
conveyor type reaper was developed in People’s Republic of China [6].
This was an 8.95kw diesel engine fitted reaper having a field capacity of about 0.65 ha/hr. and is equal
effective for both wheat and rice crop. It is an engine operated, walking type harvester suitable for
harvesting and windrowing cereals & oilseed crops. The engine power is transmitted to cutter bar and
conveyor belts through belt pulleys. Grag et al. (1985) designed and developed a front mounted vertical
conveyor reaper windrower of 1.9m cutting width, operated by a tractor of about 25hp, could effectively
harvested wheat and rice and place the harvested crop on the ground in net windrows that they could be
easily collected [7].
An increase in the cutting width of the machine to 2.2m vas recommended for commercial manufacturing
to overcome its minor operational problems. Yadav and Yadav (1985) designed and developed a tractor
drawn side mounted reaper. The basic design criteria of the machine were to cut the crop green and from
crop bunch. The crop is gathered simultaneously with harvesting and dried for threshing at a date. Yadav
et al. (1991) designed and developed a lightweight, simple and sloped animal-drawn reaper requiring low
draught compared to earlier machines [8].
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 13
2019
The crops harvested, cereal, pulses, and oilseeds are delivered in liar bunches behind the cutter bar. The
special feature of this machine is transformation of low soil thrust developed at the traction wheel into a
higher for cutting crops by a crank and level mechanism at the cutter bar. Singh et al. (1995) designed and
constructed an animal drawn reaper with an engine operated cutting and conveying mechanism for
harvesting wheat and rice [9].
However, field trails indicated that further improvements in the power transmission system are needed.
The binder was invented in 1872 by Charles Withington. In addition to cutting the small-grain crop, it
would also tie the stems into small bundles, or sheaves. These sheaves were then 'shocked' into conical
stooks, resembling small tipis, to allow the grain to dry for several days before being threshed.
Withington's original binder used wire to tie the bundles. There were various problems with using wire
and it was not long before William Deering invented a binder that used twine and a knotter (invented in
1858 by John Appleby) [10].
John Francis Appleby (1840–1917) was an American inventor who developed a knotting device to bind
grain bundles with twine, which became the foundation for all farm grain binding machinery and was
used extensively by all the major manufacturers of large grain harvesting machines in the late 19th and
early 20th centuries. Appleby's knotting device was a major landmark in the mechanization of agriculture
and aided the development of the western wheat fields of the United States [10].
Early binders were horse-drawn and powered by a bull wheel. Later models were tractor-drawn. The
implement had a reel and a sickle bar, like a modern grain head for a combine harvester, or combine. The
cut stems would fall onto a canvas, which conveyed the crop to the binding mechanism. This mechanism
bundled the stems of grain and tied a piece of twine around the bundle. Once tied, it was discharged from
the back of the binder [10].
Farming in Ethiopia is also, generally labor intensive. However, in some localities of Arsi (Asasa,
Etheya, Lole, and Dhera) there has been a shift towards the use of agricultural machinery, especially for
wheat production since the inception of Chilalo Agricultural Development Unit (CADU) in 1969. [3]
Farmers in the aforementioned areas have been interested in mechanical harvesting due:
 To the initial promotion of agricultural machinery
 CADU’s research section evaluated the performance of local farm implements against new farm
 Machines various models of harvesting and threshing machines were evaluated, and a substantial
output loss resulting from traditional harvesting and threshing techniques was found.
 The main consequences of introducing mechanical technologies during the 1970s were the
eviction of Tenants, increased unemployment, and soil erosion. [11]
Reaper binder is an equipment used for harvesting and binding low stem crops such as wheat, rice, grass,
barley, oats, reed and straw, etc. in a single operation. The machine has different structure and working
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 14
2019
rows to meet different requirements of customers. The reaper and binder machines can be divided into
self-propelled and wheel tire types. While according to the working rows of the machine, the reaper
binder machine can be divided into three rows reaper binder and two rows reaper binder.
The Self-propelled reaper and binder machine has hour forward and one reverse gear. It is steered by hand
operated brakes and foot operated pedal for turning left or right. The crop row dividers help the standing
crop to enter the machine, by the ‘raising ups’ gently push the crop towards cutter bar and push the crop
on to the crop conveying chain. The star wheel keeps the cut crop in upright position towards crop
conveyors. The crop is gathered at the knottier mechanism when sufficient quantity of crop is gathered;
the bundle is tied and ejected by the ejecting fingers out of machine. An auxiliary conveyer carries the
bundle away from the machine on the ground. The bundle size is adjustable with in limit.
Fig 8. self propelled reaper binder machine [12]

The physical construction is divided into three parts: steering mechanism, Engine mounting and cutting
and binder mechanism. Blades are mounted on the base and binder mechanism is provided to bind the cut
straws by means of string.
Therefore, from the above literature review the self-propelled reaper and binder machine is suitable for
our design and avoids the above listed problems related with manual method.
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 15
2019
Chapter Three
Concept Generation
3.1 Target product specification
The main target of this project is to provide the reaper and binder machine with minimum cost and
complexity for the investors and farmers. The requirements from the customer are qualitative and may be
subjective and also difficult to measure. In order to understand this, development teams usually establish
a set of specifications, which spell out in precise, measurable detail what the product has to do.
In this process the team started with customers need.
4.2 customer needs

# Need Rank
1 The reaper and binder Is with simple mechanism 3
2 The reaper and binder Is easy to manufacture 4
3 The reaper and binder Has optimum size 3
4 The reaper and binder Bind properly 5
5 The reaper and binder Is properly balanced and oriented 3
6 The reaper and binder Has long life span 3
7 The reaper and binder Is easy for maintenance 4
8 The reaper and binder Is easy to operate 3
9 The reaper and binder With minimum loss of grains 5
10 The reaper and binder Has minimum cost 4
11 The reaper and binder Light weight 3
12 The reaper and binder Takes less time for operation 4

13 The reaper and binder Adaptable in the field 3
14 The reaper and binder Consume less fuel 2
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 16
2019
Metric (engineering characteristics)

The next step of developing product specification is constructing the engineering characteristics matric.
For our design the matric will be
Metric # Need # Metric Rank Unit
1 3, 5, 11 Total mass 3 kg
2 2, 10 Availability of resources for manufacturing 4 -
3 7 Availability of resources for maintenance 4 -
4 12 Harvesting time 4 sec
5 3 compactness of the machine 3 -
6 12 Forward speed 4 𝑚⁄
𝑠
7 1, 8 Ease of operation 3 -
8 14 Less fuel consumption 3 Liter
9 1, 3, 11 Minimum number of parts 3 -
10 12 Binding speed and feed rate 4 -
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 17
2019
Link metric to need

The next step is to link the metric with the need and it helps us to know which functional requirement
satisfy most of the needs.
Compactness of the machine

Availability of resources for
Binding speed and feed rate

Availability of resource for
Minimum number of parts

Less fuel consumption
Ease of operation
Harvesting time
Forward speed
manufacturing
maintenance
Total mass
Need
Is with simple mechanism * *
Is easy to manufacture *
Has optimum size * * *

Bind properly
Is properly balanced and oriented *
Has long life span
Is easy for maintenance *
Is to operate * *
With minimum loss of grains
Has minimum cost *
Light weight * *
Takes less time for operation * * *
Adaptable in the field
Consume less fuel *
Target specification
Next we develop the target specification which will be modified after concept generation and scoring.
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 18
2019
# Metric Unit Value
1 Availability of tool for maintenance list -
2 Simple mechanism list -

4 Size of the farm land ℎ𝑒𝑐 1-2
5 Operation time ℎ𝑒𝑐/ℎ𝑟 0.25
3.2 Product development

Although product development is creative, the discipline requires a systematic approach to guide the
processes that are required to get a new product to market.
3.2.1 Planning
Identify opportunities
But how do you find new opportunities to take your startup to new markets and growth levels? Here are
four ways to identify more business opportunities.
1. Listen to your potential clients and past leads
2. Listen to your customers
3. Look at your competitors
4. Look at industry trends and insights
Mission Statement
The mission of this project is to design a three wheels, self-propelled, barley and wheat reaper and binder
machine. This leads to solve problems of harvesting and binding the crops, and to decrease human power
and time spend to do the work. The mission of this project is to overcome the following problems:
 High labor cost
 Harvesting of crops manually is tedious, time consuming and less productive
Primary market
 Farmers
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 19
2019
Secondary market
 Investors who own large farm land for the production of wheat and barley.
Tertiary market
 Customers who want to rent the machine for a specified date
Stakeholders
 Users
 Manufacturers
Overall function of the project
Process
Input Output
Engine fuel, matured crop Crop harvesting and Binding crop

and binding rope binding process
3.3 Concept Generation

3.3.1 Alternative concepts on the power transmission or flow
Different parts and mechanisms used in our design are:
 Three wheels
 Binding mechanism
 Self-propelled drive system
 Conveyors
 Blade arrangement
To transfer the rotational motion of the engine to the cutter bar and conveyors by changing the axis of
rotation we can use different alternatives. Among this this we have considered two mechanisms and we
will select the best.
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 20
2019
Plat Form
Basic parts: different pulley, belt, cam, leaf spring, cutter bar with its blade, shaft, conveyor
Working mechanism
The reciprocating motion of the cutter bar is achieved by the cam profile mounted on the vertical shaft.
The follower is connected to the link connected to the cutter bar. The leaf spring is used to return the
follower. There is another link which connect the follower and the cutter bar and this link is pined in the
middle on the plate below the cutter. As the cam profile rotates it push the follower and the spring returns
it back to its position. Since the connecting link is pined it create the reciprocating motion so it cuts the
crop.
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 21
2019
Alternative A
Basic parts: pulley, slotted link, cutting rod plus its blade, shaft, wheel….
Working mechanism
For this alternative bevel gear is used to transfer the rotation of the engine and change the direction of
rotation or axis of rotation. The rotational motion will be transferred through the bevel gear to the finger
conveyers and the cutter bar.
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 22
2019
Alternative B
Basic parts: pulley, twin slider crank, cutting rod plus its blade, shaft, wheel….
Working mechanism
This alternative uses belts instead of gear like the plat form. But the difference is that the rotational
motion of the engine is directly transferred to the pulley, which is connected to the cam profile through
shaft that crates the reciprocation motion of the cuter bar.
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 23
2019
3.3.2 Alternative concepts on the cutter bar actuation

The full rotational motion of the engine need to be converted to reciprocating motion of the cutter bar in
order to cut the crop and bind it. To achieve this motion different mechanisms can be implemented and
some mechanisms are suggested then the soundest is selected.
Concept One
Basic parts: pulley, slotted link, cutting rod plus its blade, shaft, wheel….
Working mechanism
The reciprocating motion of the cutter is achieved by the sliding yoke with slot. These have easy
construction of assembly and operation and uses to generate linear motion easily from the rotary motion
of the disk.
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 24
2019
Concept two
Basic parts: pulley, twin slider crank, cutting rod plus its blade, shaft, wheel….
Working mechanism
The reciprocating motion of the cutter bar is achieved by the twin slider crank mechanism (the connecting
rod converts the rotary motion of the crank to the linear translation of the cutter bar). The two connecting
roads reduce the vibration.
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 25
2019
Concept three
Basic parts: pulley, cam profile, cutting rod plus its blade, shaft, wheel….
Working mechanism
The reciprocating motion of the cutter bar is achieved by the cam profile which is rotates as a pulley held
on the first stage shaft mounted on the front wheel shaft finally.
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 26
2019
Binding mechanism
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 27
2019
3.4 Concept selection

The process of selecting the best alternative will be done as show by the following flow chart.
Preparing the selection matrix

Importance value
In this stage we use five point scale and each value has its own interpretation or description like good,
excellent, etc. which indicate the importance each criteria. The following table illustrates this importance
value.
5 – point scale Description

1 Inadequate
2 Weak
3 Satisfactory
4 Good
5 Excellent
Some of the selection criteria used in concept selection stage are: -
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 28
2019
 Functionality
 Ease of manufacturing
 Light Weight
 Ease of maintenance
 Compactness
 Ease of operation
 Availability of tools
 Minimum harvesting time
 Minimum loss of grain
 Complexity
 Feasibility
 Longer life span
3.4.1 Scoring based on the power transmission

Alterna
Alterna
referen
tive A
tive B
ce
Criteria
W. score
W. score
W. score
Weight
rating
rating
rating
Functionality 9 4 4 4
0.36 0.36 0.36
Ease of manufacturing 8 2 0.16 2 0.16 3 0.24
Minimum Weight 8 3 0.24 3 0.24 4 0.32
Ease of maintenance 7 3 0.21 2 0.14 3 0.21
Compactness 8 2 0.16 3 0.24 4 0.32
Ease of operation 7 3 0.21 3 0.21 4 0.28
Availability of tools 7 3 0.21 3 0.21 2 0.14
Longer life span 9 4 0.36 4 0.36 4 0.36
Min harvesting time 8 4 0.32 4 0.32 4 0.32
Minimum loss of grain 10 4 0.4 4 0.4 4 0.4
Less complexity 8 2 0.16 3 0.24 3 0.24
Feasibility 11 3 4 4
0.33 0.44 0.44
Total (%) 100 3.12 3.32 3.63
Rank 2 1
Continue? no yes
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 29
2019
Decision
Alternative B is selected
3.4.2 Scoring on cuter bar actuation mechanism

concept
concept
concept
referen
ce
3
Criteria
W. score
W. score
W. score
W. score
Weight
rating
rating
rating
rating
Functionality 9 4 4 4 4
0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36
Ease of manufacturing 8 2 0.16 5 0.4 4 0.32 3 0.24
Minimum Weight 8 3 0.24 4 0.32 3 0.24 3 0.24
Ease of maintenance 7 3 0.21 4 0.28 4 0.28 4 0.28
Compactness 8 2 0.16 4 0.32 4 0.32 4 0.32
Ease of operation 7 3 0.21 5 0.35 4 0.28 4 0.28
Availability of tools 7 3 0.21 4 0.28 4 0.28 3 0.21
Longer life span 9 4 0.36 4 0.36 4 0.36 4 0.36
Min harvesting time 8 4 0.32 4 0.32 4 0.32 4 0.32
Minimum loss of grain 10 4 0.4 4 0.4 4 0.4 4 0.4
Less complexity 8 2 0.16 5 0.4 4 0.32 3 0.24
Feasibility 11 3 0.33 4 0.44 4 0.44 4 0.44
Total (%) 100 3.12 4.23 3.92 3.69
Rank 1 2 3
Continue? yes no no
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 30
2019
Decision
Alternative 1 is selected and we will proceed with it for the rest of the design.
Final decision on power flow and cuter bar actuation
Self-propelled reaper
binder
Alternative B
Concept 1
3.5 System design

The output of this preliminary design gives a technical specifications mean a set of physical
measurements that define each part completely, without the use of detailed drawings; sometimes technical
specifications are a complement to a conventional detailed drawing, but can be used as a substitute [13].
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 31
2019
Embodiment design
Embodiment design is the part of the design process in which, starting from the principle solution or
concept of a technical product, the design is developed in accordance with technical and economic criteria
and in the light of further information, to the point where subsequent detail design can lead directly to
production.
The embodiment (layout and form designs) of the function carriers should be based on the checklist and
involves reference to the principles of mechanics and structures, and to materials technology. It calls for
calculations ranging from the simplest through to complex differential equations and finite element
analyses [14].
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 32
2019
Chapter Four
Design of Parts
4.1 Geometry analysis
The geometry analysis demonstrates the major dimensional relationship between the main
components of the reaper and binder machine.
The overall dimension of the machine is the sum off the smaller dimensions and they are given due to the
following reasons
 The distance from the rear wheel center to the frame should allow the driver to sit properly and
stretch his legs freely. But the machine needs to be compact, so the optimum length is 1m and the
dimension is taken accordingly.
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 33
2019
 The rear wheel is smaller than the two driving wheels at the front and it is driven so the wheel of
three wheel motor vehicle can be used for our design. The diameter and thickness of the wheel is
found from the tire specification.
Wheel Width (in)

6.5x15
Explanation: 6.5 is the wheel width x 15 is the wheel diameter
- The smaller size of the two is normally the width, with the larger being the diameter
- Wheel width is referred to in inches.
- The width of the wheel will dictate the tire sizes that will fit on the wheel.
- The wider the width, the wider the tire size that will fit on the wheel.
 The dimension of the two driving wheels are also take from the specification of Apollo 165/80
tire.
Apollo MRF ZTX 165/80 R14 85T Tubeless Car Tire
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 34
2019
 Most of the reaper and binder machines found in the market use cutter bar width 1.2-1.4. Our
target is to make the machine as compact as possible, so we decided the cutter bar to have 1.2m
width.
 The dimensions of the sit are take on average width and height of humans and other dimensions
are taken considering the function and the components of the machine used in the design. The
team has also made research on different machine specifications and projects to optimize the size
and make the machine compact.
4.2 Force Analysis

4.2.1 Cutter design
As it was mentioned above the rotational motion of the engine is translated to the reciprocating motion of
the cuter bar and the length of the cutter bar is decided based on the above reasons. The size and shape of
the knife section is selected in accordance with the following criteria’s.
a) Gripping of stalk by cutting pair: the crop is cut by impact and shear action between the knife
section and guard lip and the stalk should be pinched between the cutting edge of knife section and
guard lip.
This condition is satisfied when
< 𝛼 + < 𝛽 ≤ < 𝜙1 + < 𝜙2
< 𝛼 = 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑐𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑘𝑛𝑖𝑓𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

< 𝛽 = 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑐𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑤𝑖𝑛 𝑔𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑑
< 𝜙1 𝑎𝑛𝑑 < 𝜙2 = 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑝 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑘𝑛𝑖𝑓𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑔𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑙𝑖𝑝 𝑟𝑒𝑠
𝛼 should range from 25 − 350 for moisture content 14 − 22% in wheat crop. Most reapers in the
market use 310 so, the team decised 𝛼 to be 310 for the design [15].
b) Rake angle and thickness of cutting edge: in order to have good cutting ability the rake angle
should be 22 − 250 . If the angle is large the force requirement for cutting will be high and if it
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 35
2019
small it will have small life span. So, rake angle of 220 with sharp cutting edge is selected for the
knife section.
c) Clerance between the knife section and front guard: Best results are obtained when clearance
between Knive section and lerdge plates is maintained between 0.5 and 1mm. So, 0.7 is selected.
Decision: 𝛼 = 310
𝑅𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 = 220
𝐶𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 0.7𝑚𝑚
4.2.2 Forces acting on cutter bar of a reaper

Forces acting on cutter bar (P): The total resisting force (P) acting on the cutter bar is the sum of all the
forces acting on the knife:
𝑃 = 𝑃𝑐 + 𝑃𝑓 + 𝑃𝑖
Where P = total resisting force in cutter bar, N or kg
Pc = Average resistance to cutting, N or kg
Pf = Frictional force, N or kg
Pi = Inertia force of knife section, N or kg
The total resisting force (Pc) on a cutter bar is given by:

E.Fl .Z
Pc 
Xc
Where Pc = total cutting force in cutter bar, N or kg

E = 1.25 N-cm/cm2 (for wheat) (since wheat have high resistance to cutting we use the properties of
wheat to design the machine.)
𝐹𝑙 = Knife load area
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 36
2019
Length of the standard knife= 7.62cm

For a single stroke cutter the knife sweep = 5.5cm
F1= 7.62cm*5.5cm=41.9 cm2
Z = Number of knife sections in the cutter bar
For the width of the cutter bar taken 120cm the number of knife sections can be calculated as
𝑐𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ 120𝑐𝑚
𝑍 = 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑘𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ = = 15.748
7.62𝑐𝑚
𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑍 = 15
𝑋𝑐 = Displacement of knife from start to end of cutting for a standard knife section = 2.81cm
1.25𝑁𝑐𝑚 15
For wheat 𝑃𝑐 = ∗ 41.9𝑐𝑚2 ∗ 2.81𝑐𝑚 = 279.582𝑁
𝑐𝑚 2
Inertia force in cutter bar (Pi): The inertia force (Pi) acting on the cutter bar is given by
Pi  M k r 2 1  x / r 
Where Mk = mass of knife section, kg

r = Radius in cm
 = Angular velocity, rad/s

x = Length of stroke, cm
At initial and final points of stroke, P l would be maximum
𝑃𝑙 = 𝑀𝑘 𝑟𝜔2
For a reaper weight of the cutter bar per meter length ranges from 20 to 22 N.
Decision to have minimum weight take weight to be20𝑁/𝑚. For the cutter bar having width of 120cm,
20𝑁 1.2𝑚
𝑀𝑘 = ∗ 9.81𝑁 = 2.4468 𝐾𝑔
𝑚
𝐾𝑔
The radius can be calculated as

𝑘𝑛𝑖𝑓𝑒 𝑠𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑝 5.5𝑐𝑚
𝑟= = = 2.75𝑐𝑚
2 2
To determine the angular velocity of the knife, the forward speeds of reaper machines ranges
between4 𝑡𝑜 5𝐾𝑚/ℎ𝑟. Therefore average forward speed can be taken
𝑘𝑚 1.667𝑚
𝑉𝑚 = 4.2 ℎ𝑟 = 𝑠
For the cutter knifes available at the market the velocity ratio ranges from 1.3 to 1.4.
Decision R = 1.37
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 37
2019
Theoretical velocity of the knife can be calculated as

1.667𝑚
v𝑘 = R ∗ vm = 1.37 ∗ = 1.5984 𝑚/𝑠
𝑠
Also the velocity of the knife can be determine as

N N
v𝑘 = x ∗ 30k = 7.62𝑐𝑚 ∗ 30k
1.5984𝑚
30v𝑘 𝑠
Nk = = 30 ∗ = 629.283 𝑟𝑝𝑚 𝑠𝑎𝑦 630 𝑟𝑝𝑚
𝑥 7.62𝑐𝑚
The actual knife speed can be calculated by assuming 10% slippage in the belt drive.
𝐍𝐤 = 𝟔𝟑𝟎 𝒓𝒑𝒎 ∗ 𝟎. 𝟗 = 𝟓𝟔𝟕 𝒓𝒑𝒎 = 𝟓𝟗. 𝟑𝟕𝟔𝟏𝒓𝒂𝒅/𝒔

N 567
v𝑘 = x ∗ 30k = 7.62𝑐𝑚 ∗ 1.44018𝑚/𝑠
30
Therefore 𝑃𝑙 = 2.4468 𝐾𝑔 ∗ 2.75𝑐𝑚 ∗ 59.37612 = 237.2217 𝑁

Frictional force in cutter bar (Pf): The frictional force (Pf) acts on the knife as it slides over the finger bar
and is given by:
𝑃𝑓 = 𝑃𝑓1 + 𝑃𝑓2
Where force due to weight of cutter bar, N or kg which can be calculated
𝑃𝑓1 = 𝐺𝑘 ∗ 𝑓
Where 𝐺𝑘 = weight of cutter bar (20 – 22 N/m length of cutter bar)
Let’s take 20N/m the weight of the cutter bar having 120cm becomes
20𝑁
𝐺𝑘 = ∗ 1.2𝑚 = 24𝑁
𝑚
f = 0.2 – 0.3 let’s take f=0.25

𝑃𝑓1 = 𝐺𝑘 ∗ 𝑓 = 24𝑁 ∗ 0.25 = 6𝑁
Force caused by normal component of force exerted by yoke on knife Pf2, N or kg
𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛽
𝑃𝑓2 = [(𝑃𝑐 + 𝑃𝑙 + 𝑃𝑓1) ∗ 1−𝑓∗𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛽 ] ∗ 𝑓
Taking the angle 𝛽 = 120

𝑡𝑎𝑛12
𝑃𝑓2 = [(279.582 + 237.2217 + 6) ∗ ] ∗ 0.25 = 29.34𝑁
1−0.25∗𝑡𝑎𝑛12
𝑃𝑓 = 6 𝑁 + 29.34𝑁 = 35.34 𝑁
Therefore the total force of the cutter bar can be determine as
𝑃 = 279.582 𝑁 + 237.2217𝑁 + 35.34𝑁
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 38
2019
𝑃 = 552.1437𝑁
Power requirement of vertical conveyor reaper
𝑊𝑚 = 𝑊𝑟 + 𝑊𝑛 + 𝑊𝑤
Where
𝑊𝑟 = power requirement for rolling machines
𝑊𝑛 = power requirement for no load working of parts
𝑊𝑤 = power requirement for full load of working
𝑃∗𝑉
𝑾𝒓 = = 𝑃∗𝑉
𝜂𝑡𝑟 ∗ 𝜂𝑠
Where 𝑃 = 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑒
𝑉 = 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑
𝜂𝑡𝑟 = 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦

𝜂𝑠 = 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑒
Most reaper and binder machines available in the market have mass between 400 and 500 Kg, so the team
take the average and decided the mass to be 450Kg.
Assuming the coefficient of rolling resistance to be 0.2
450 ∗ 0.2 ∗∗ 1.1667
𝑊𝑟 =
75
𝑊𝑟 = 𝟏. 𝟒𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟒𝒉𝒑
𝑊𝑤 = 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 + 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑦𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑢𝑡 𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑝 (𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑖𝑠 50% 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒
𝑎 𝑐𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑎𝑟 𝑐𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟)
𝑊𝑤 = 𝑃𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 ∗ 𝑉𝑘 + 50% 𝑜𝑓 (𝑃𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 ∗ 𝑉𝑘 )
= (552.1437 ∗ 1.5984) + 0.5 ∗ (552.1437 ∗ 1.5984)
= 882.55 + 441.273
= 1323.823 𝑊
But 1𝑊 = 0.0014ℎ𝑝 so 1323.823𝑊 = 1.85335ℎ𝑝
Now 𝑊𝑚 = 1.40004 + 1.85335
𝑊𝑚 = 3.2534ℎ𝑝
4.2.3 Engine selection (standard)

Engine is assembly of mechanical components used for converting energy into motion or mechanical
work. Four stroke diesel engine is used for our design considering its purpose and its power requirement.
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 39
2019
Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline-powered engines. Based on the calculated power the
following engine is selected from standard.
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 40
2019
4.3 Design of power transmission element

4.3.1 Design of the flat belt to drive the cutter bar and finger conveyors from the engine
Belts, ropes, chains, and other similar elastic or flexible machine elements are used in conveying systems
and in the transmission of power over comparatively long distances. Among this belt is the most efficient
means of power transmission so it is used for our design.
We have four kinds of belts: Flat, Round, V and Timing belts. Flat belts are quiet, they are efficient at
high speeds, and they can transmit large amounts of power over long center distances. A flat-belt drive
has an efficiency of about 98 percent, which is about the same as for a gear drive. In contrast with flat
belts, V belts are used with similar sheaves and at shorter center distances and they are slightly less
efficient than flat belts. The efficiency of a V-belt drive ranges from about 70 to 96 percent. Timing belts
are much efficient but they are expensive and the necessity of grooving the sprockets, and the attendant
dynamic fluctuations caused at the belt-tooth meshing frequency makes them less applicable [16].
For this project flat belts are chosen since they can be used for any distance, they are quite and produce
very little noise and absorb more torsional vibration from the system than either V-belt or gear drives. As
it is mentioned above flat belts are more efficient at any distance.
In order to design belts the following dimensions are needed
 D = diameter of large pulley

 d = diameter of small pulley
 C = center distance
First we need to decide the diameter of the small pulley. This diameter is taken from standard Shigley’s
9th ed. table 17-2
𝑖𝑏𝑓⁄ 𝑁
𝑃𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙: 𝑃𝑜𝑙𝑦𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑏 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 (𝛾) = 0.037 𝑖𝑛3 = 10043.56 ⁄𝑚3
𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛: 𝐴– 2𝑐
𝐵𝑒𝑙𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 0.11𝑖𝑛
𝐶𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 0.8
1𝑖𝑛 = 25.4𝑚𝑚, so 𝑡 = 0.11 ∗ 25.4𝑚𝑚 = 2.794𝑚𝑚
𝑃𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑦 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 2.4 𝑖𝑛
𝑑𝑝 = 60𝑚𝑚
Angle of wrap (𝜙) = 𝜃𝑑
The rpm of the shaft from the engine is 1500𝑟𝑝𝑚 and the rpm of the conveyor shaft is 570𝑟𝑝𝑚.
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 41
2019
To calculate the diameter of the large pulley we take the ratio of their rpm and diameter considering
slippage and thickness.
𝑁2 𝑑1+𝑡 𝑠
= (𝑑2+𝑡 ) (1 − 100 )
𝑁1
𝑁1 = 1500𝑟𝑝𝑚
𝑁2 = 570𝑟𝑝𝑚
𝑆 = 10%
570 60 + 2.794
=( ) (0.9)
1500 𝑑2 + 2.794
56.5146
0.38 = 𝑑2+2.794
148.72 = 𝑑2 + 2.794
𝒅𝟐 = 𝟏𝟒𝟓. 𝟗𝟑𝒎𝒎
The next largest diameter for the largest pulley from the standard is 9.5in which is 240 mm. Shigley’s 9th
ed. tables 17-2
The properties of the belt with minimum pulley diameter 9.5in are
𝑃𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙: 𝑃𝑜𝑙𝑦𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑏
𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛: A– 4𝑐
Based on the size of our machine the center to center distance is taken 500mm, so
The contact angle
𝐷−𝑑
𝜃𝑑 = 𝜋 − 2 𝑠𝑖𝑛−1 2𝐶
𝐷−𝑑
𝜃𝐷 = 𝜋 + 2 𝑠𝑖𝑛−1 2𝐶
240−60 𝑚𝑚
𝜙 = 𝜃𝑑 = 𝜋 − 2 𝑠𝑖𝑛−1 = 159.26𝑜 = 2.779 𝑟𝑎𝑑
2∗500𝑚𝑚
240−60 𝑚𝑚
𝜃𝐷 = 𝜋 + 2 𝑠𝑖𝑛−1 = 200.74𝑜 = 3.5 𝑟𝑎𝑑
2∗500𝑚𝑚
The length of the belt is found by

1 1
𝐿 = [4𝐶 2 − (𝐷 − 𝑑 )2 ]2 + (𝐷𝜃𝐷 + 𝑑𝜃𝑑 )
2
1
1
𝐿 = [4(500)2 − (240 − 60)2 ]2 + 2 [(240 ∗ 3.5) + (60 ∗ 2.779)]
𝐿 = 983.7 + 503.37
𝐿 = 1487.07𝑚𝑚
𝑒𝑥𝑝(𝑓𝜙) = 𝑒𝑥𝑝(0.8 ∗ 2.779) = 9.2368
The belt speed is
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 42
2019
𝜋 ∗ 𝑑1 ∗ 𝑛 𝜋 ∗ 0.06 ∗ 1500
𝑉= =
60 60
𝑚
𝑉 = 4.7 ⁄𝑠
Weight of the root of belt
𝑊 = 𝛾𝑏𝑡
1𝑖𝑏𝑓 = 4.4482𝑁, So 0.037 𝑖𝑛3 = 10043.56 ⁄𝑚 3
1𝑖𝑛 = 0.0254𝑚
From table 17-3 the width of the belt is taken to be 1.25𝑖𝑛 = 0.03175𝑚
𝑊 = 10043.56 ∗ 2.794 ∗ 10−3 ∗ 0.03175 = 0.891 𝑁⁄𝑚

Tension due to centrifugal force (Fc)
𝑤 2 0.891
𝐹𝑐 = 𝑉 = ∗ (4.7)2 = 2.006
𝑔 9.81
Torque is calculated from power and angular velocity of the shaft
𝑁 = 1500𝑟𝑝𝑚
2 ∗ 𝜋 ∗ 𝑛 2 ∗ 𝜋 ∗ 1500
𝜔= = = 157.08 𝑟𝑎𝑑⁄𝑠
60 60
63025𝐻𝑛𝑜𝑚 𝐾𝑠𝑛𝑑
𝑇= 𝑁
, where 𝐾𝑠 = 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝑖𝑡 𝑏𝑒 1.5
𝑛𝑑 = 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑦 𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝑖𝑡 𝑏𝑒 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑜 𝑜𝑟 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 1.1

63025 ∗ 5 ∗ 1.5 ∗ 1.1
𝑇 = = 288.86 𝐼𝑏𝑓. 𝑖𝑛
1500
𝑇 = 288.86 ∗ 4.4482 ∗ 0.0254 = 32.6 𝑁𝑚
The necessary force to transmit torque ((𝐹1)𝑎 − 𝐹2)
2𝑇 2∗32.6
(𝐹1 )𝑎 – 𝐹2 = = = 1087.9𝑁
𝑑 0.06
The allowable largest tension (𝐹1)𝑎

(𝐹1 )𝑎 = 𝑏 ∗ 𝐹𝑎 ∗ 𝐶𝑝∗ 𝐶𝑣
Where 𝐶𝑝 = 𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
For smaller pulley diameter from 1 to 4in 𝐶𝑃 = 0.73 from Shigley’s 9th ed. table 17-4
𝐶𝑉 = 𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
For polyamide flat belt 𝐶𝑉 = 1
𝑖𝑛 = 10507.56 ⁄𝑚 Shigley’s 9 ed. table 17-2
th
𝐹𝑎 = 𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ 𝑖𝑠 60
(𝐹1 )𝑎 = 0.03175 ∗ 10507.56 ∗ 0.73
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 43
2019
(𝐹1 )𝑎 = 2435.4 𝑁
Then
𝐹2  (𝐹1 )𝑎  [(𝐹1 )𝑎  𝐹2 ]
𝐹2 = 2435.4 − 1087.9 = 1347.5 𝑁
The necessary initial tension (𝑭𝒊 )
(𝐹1 )𝑎 + 𝐹2 2435.4 − 1347.5

𝐹𝑖 = − 𝐹𝑐 = − 2.006
2 2
𝐹𝑖 = 1889.4 𝑁
Checking the friction development
1 (𝐹1 )𝑎 − 𝐹𝑐 1 2435.4 − 2.006

𝑓′ = ln = ln = 0.213
𝜙 𝐹2 − 𝐹𝑐 2.779 1347.5 − 2.006
From Table 17–2, f = 0.8. Since 𝑓 ′ < 𝑓 that is, 0.213 < 0.80, there is no danger of slipping.
4.3.2 Design of the first reduction belt to drive the main shaft
𝑃𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙: 𝑃𝑜𝑙𝑦𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑏 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 (𝛾) = 0.037 𝑖𝑛3 = 10043.56 ⁄𝑚 3
1𝑖𝑛 = 25.4𝑚𝑚, so 𝑡 = 0.11 ∗ 25.4𝑚𝑚 = 2.794𝑚𝑚
By taking the reduction ratio 1: 2
The rpm of the shaft from the engine is 1500𝑟𝑝𝑚 and the rpm of the axle of the wheel will be 750𝑟𝑝𝑚.
𝑁2 𝑑1+𝑡 𝑠 𝑁1
= (𝑑2+𝑡) (1 − 100) but =2 so,
𝑁1 𝑁2
𝑁1 = 1500𝑟𝑝𝑚
𝑁2 = 750𝑟𝑝𝑚
750 1 60+2.794 10
= 2 = (𝑑 ) (1 − )
1500 2 +2.794 100
62.794
0.5556 = 𝑑2+2.794
𝒅𝟐 = 𝟏𝟏𝟎. 𝟐𝟑𝟓𝒎𝒎
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 44
2019
Decision
𝒅𝟐 = 𝟏𝟐𝟎 𝒎𝒎
Based on the size of our machine the center to center distance is taken 250mm, so
The contact angle
𝐷−𝑑
𝜃𝑑 = 𝜋 − 2 𝑠𝑖𝑛−1 2𝐶
𝐷−𝑑
𝜃𝐷 = 𝜋 + 2 𝑠𝑖𝑛−1 2𝐶
120−60 𝑚𝑚
𝜙 = 𝜃𝑑 = 𝜋 − 2 𝑠𝑖𝑛−1 = 166.216𝑜 = 2.901 𝑟𝑎𝑑
2∗250𝑚𝑚
120−60 𝑚𝑚
𝜃𝐷 = 𝜋 + 2 𝑠𝑖𝑛−1 = 193.78𝑜 = 3.382 𝑟𝑎𝑑
2∗250𝑚𝑚

1 1
𝐿 = [4𝐶 2 − (𝐷 − 𝑑 )2 ]2 + (𝐷𝜃𝐷 + 𝑑𝜃𝑑 )
2
1
1
𝐿 = [4(250)2 − (120 − 60)2 ]2 + 2 [(120 ∗ 3.5) + (60 ∗ 2.779)]
𝐿 = 496.3869 + 289.95
𝐿 = 786.3369𝑚𝑚
𝑒𝑥𝑝(𝑓𝜙) = 𝑒𝑥𝑝(0.8 ∗ 2.901) = 10.1838
The belt speed is
𝜋 ∗ 𝑑1 ∗ 𝑛 𝜋 ∗ 0.06 ∗ 1500
𝑉= =
60 60
𝑚
𝑉 = 4.7 ⁄𝑠
𝑊 = 𝛾𝑏𝑡
1𝑖𝑏𝑓 = 4.4482𝑁, So 0.037 𝑖𝑛3 = 10043.56 ⁄𝑚 3
1𝑖𝑛 = 0.0254𝑚
From Shigley’s 9th edition, table 17-3 the width of the belt is taken to be 1.25𝑖𝑛 = 0.03175𝑚
𝑊 = 10043.56 ∗ 2.794 ∗ 10−3 ∗ 0.03175 = 0.891 𝑁⁄𝑚

𝑤 2 0.891
𝐹𝑐 = 𝑉 = ∗ (4.7)2 = 2.006
𝑔 9.81
𝑁 = 1500𝑟𝑝𝑚
2 ∗ 𝜋 ∗ 𝑛 2 ∗ 𝜋 ∗ 1500
𝜔= = = 157.08 𝑟𝑎𝑑⁄𝑠
60 60
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 45
2019
𝑇= 𝑁

63025 ∗ 5 ∗ 1.5 ∗ 1.1
𝑇 = = 288.86 𝐼𝑏𝑓. 𝑖𝑛
1500
𝑇 = 288.86 ∗ 4.4482 ∗ 0.0254 = 32.6 𝑁𝑚
2𝑇 2∗32.6
(𝐹1 )𝑎 – 𝐹2 = = = 1087.9𝑁
𝑑 0.06

(𝐹1 )𝑎 = 𝑏 ∗ 𝐹𝑎 ∗ 𝐶𝑝∗ 𝐶𝑣
𝑖𝑛 = 10507.56 ⁄𝑚 Shigley’s 9 ed. table 17-2
th
(𝐹1 )𝑎 = 0.03175 ∗ 10507.56 ∗ 0.73
(𝐹1 )𝑎 = 2435.4 𝑁
Then
𝐹2  (𝐹1 )𝑎  [(𝐹1 )𝑎  𝐹2 ]
𝐹2 = 2435.4 − 1087.9 = 1347.5 𝑁
(𝐹1 )𝑎 + 𝐹2 2435.4 − 1347.5

𝐹𝑖 = − 𝐹𝑐 = − 2.006
2 2
𝐹𝑖 = 1889.4 𝑁
1 (𝐹1 )𝑎 − 𝐹𝑐 1 2435.4 − 2.006

𝑓′ = ln = ln = 0.213
𝜙 𝐹2 − 𝐹𝑐 2.779 1347.5 − 2.006
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 46
2019
4.3.3 Design of belt to drive the finger conveyors

𝑃𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙: 𝑃𝑜𝑙𝑦𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑏 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 (𝛾) = 0.037 𝑖𝑛3 = 10043.56 ⁄𝑚 3
1𝑖𝑛 = 25.4𝑚𝑚, so 𝑡 = 0.11 ∗ 25.4𝑚𝑚 = 2.794𝑚𝑚
Since the two finger conveyors need to be synchronized and move with the same speed we took the ratio
1: 1
The rpm of the large disc is 570𝑟𝑝𝑚 and the rpm of the axle of the wheel will be.
𝑁2 𝑑1+𝑡 𝑠 𝑁1
= (𝑑2+𝑡) (1 − 100) but =1 so,
𝑁1 𝑁2
𝑁1 = 570𝑟𝑝𝑚
𝑁2 = 570𝑟𝑝𝑚
570 1 60+2.794 10
= =( ) (1 − )
570 1 𝑑2+2.794 100
56.5146
1 = 𝑑2+2.794
𝒅𝟐 = 𝟓𝟑. 𝟕𝟐𝟎𝟔 𝒎𝒎
The next larger pulley from the standard is pulley with the same diameter as the first one so
Decision
𝒅𝟐 = 𝟔𝟎 𝒎𝒎
Based on the size of our machine the center to center distance is taken 668 mm, so
The contact angle
𝐷−𝑑
𝜃𝑑 = 𝜋 − 2 𝑠𝑖𝑛−1 2𝐶
𝐷−𝑑
𝜃𝐷 = 𝜋 + 2 𝑠𝑖𝑛−1 2𝐶
60−60 𝑚𝑚
𝜙 = 𝜃𝑑 = 𝜋 − 2 𝑠𝑖𝑛−1 = 180𝑜 = 3.14 𝑟𝑎𝑑
2∗668𝑚𝑚
60−60 𝑚𝑚
𝜃𝐷 = 𝜋 + 2 𝑠𝑖𝑛−1 = 180𝑜 = 3.14 𝑟𝑎𝑑
2∗668𝑚𝑚

1 1
𝐿 = [4𝐶 2 − (𝐷 − 𝑑 )2 ]2 + (𝐷𝜃𝐷 + 𝑑𝜃𝑑 )
2
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 47
2019
1
1
𝐿 = [4(668)2 − (60 − 60)2 ]2 + 2 [(60 ∗ 3.14) + (60 ∗ 3.14)]
𝐿 = 1336 + 188.4
𝐿 = 1524.4 𝑚𝑚 = 1.5244 𝑚
𝑒𝑥𝑝(𝑓𝜙) = 𝑒𝑥𝑝(0.8 ∗ 3.14) = 12.33
The belt speed is
𝜋 ∗ 𝑑1 ∗ 𝑛 𝜋 ∗ 0.06 ∗ 570
𝑉= =
60 60
𝑚
𝑉 = 1.7907 ⁄𝑠
𝑊 = 𝛾𝑏𝑡
1𝑖𝑏𝑓 = 4.4482𝑁, So 0.037 𝑖𝑛3 = 10043.56 ⁄𝑚 3
1𝑖𝑛 = 0.0254𝑚
From Shigley’s 9th edition, table 17-3 the width of the belt is taken to be 1.25𝑖𝑛 = 0.03175𝑚
𝑊 = 10043.56 ∗ 2.794 ∗ 10−3 ∗ 0.03175 = 0.891 𝑁⁄𝑚

𝑤 2 0.891
𝐹𝑐 = 𝑉 = ∗ (1.7907)2 = 0.29
𝑔 9.81
𝑁 = 570 𝑟𝑝𝑚
2 ∗ 𝜋 ∗ 𝑛 2 ∗ 𝜋 ∗ 570
𝜔= = = 59.7 𝑟𝑎𝑑⁄𝑠
60 60
𝑇= 𝑁

63025 ∗ 5 ∗ 1.5 ∗ 1.1
𝑇 = = 912.2 𝐼𝑏𝑓. 𝑖𝑛
570
𝑇 = 912.2 ∗ 4.4482 ∗ 0.0254 = 103.06 𝑁𝑚
2𝑇 2∗103.06
(𝐹1 )𝑎 – 𝐹2 = = = 3435.49𝑁
𝑑 0.06

(𝐹1 )𝑎 = 𝑏 ∗ 𝐹𝑎 ∗ 𝐶𝑝∗ 𝐶𝑣
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 48
2019
𝑖𝑛 = 10507.56 ⁄𝑚 From Shigley’s 9 ed. table
th
17-2)
(𝐹1 )𝑎 = 0.03175 ∗ 10507.56 ∗ 0.73
(𝐹1 )𝑎 = 2435.4 𝑁
Then
𝐹2  (𝐹1 )𝑎  [(𝐹1 )𝑎  𝐹2 ]
𝐹2 = 3435.49 − 2435.4 = 1000.09 𝑁
(𝐹1 )𝑎 + 𝐹2 2435.4 − 1000.09

𝐹𝑖 = − 𝐹𝑐 = − 0.29
2 2
𝐹𝑖 = 717.365 𝑁
1 (𝐹1 )𝑎 − 𝐹𝑐 1 2435.4 − 0.29

𝑓′ = ln = ln = 0.32
𝜙 𝐹2 − 𝐹𝑐 2.779 1000.09 − 0.29
4.3.4 Design of belt to drive the binder

Diameter for the main shaft pulley = 60mm
And rotation = 750rpm
And we selected the pulley and its belt similar to the one we used before:
𝑖𝑏𝑓
𝑃𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙: 𝑃𝑜𝑙𝑦𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑏 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 (𝛾) = 0.037 ⁄ 3 = 10043.56 𝑁⁄ 3
𝑖𝑛 𝑚
1𝑖𝑛 = 25.4𝑚𝑚, so 𝑡 = 0.11 ∗ 25.4𝑚𝑚 = 2.794𝑚𝑚
750
The reduction ratio for 1:4, therefore 4
= 187.5𝑟𝑝𝑚
𝑁2 𝑑1+𝑡 𝑠
= (𝑑2+𝑡) (1 − 100) so,
𝑁1
𝑁1 = 750𝑟𝑝𝑚
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 49
2019
𝑁2 = 187.5𝑟𝑝𝑚
187.5 60+2.794 10
= (𝑑 ) (1 − )
750 2 +2.794 100
62.794
0.2778 = 𝑑2+2.794
𝒅𝟐 = 𝟐𝟐𝟑 𝒎𝒎
Based on the size of our machine the center to center distance is taken 841 mm, so
The contact angle
𝐷−𝑑
𝜃𝑑 = 𝜋 − 2 𝑠𝑖𝑛−1 2𝐶
𝐷−𝑑
𝜃𝐷 = 𝜋 + 2 𝑠𝑖𝑛−1 2𝐶
223−60 𝑚𝑚
𝜙 = 𝜃𝑑 = 𝜋 − 2 𝑠𝑖𝑛−1 = 2.947 𝑟𝑎𝑑
2∗841𝑚𝑚
223−60 𝑚𝑚
𝜃𝐷 = 𝜋 + 2 𝑠𝑖𝑛−1 = 3.336 𝑟𝑎𝑑
2∗841𝑚𝑚

1 1
𝐿 = [4𝐶 2 − (𝐷 − 𝑑 )2 ]2 + (𝐷𝜃𝐷 + 𝑑𝜃𝑑 )
2
1
1
𝐿 = [4(841)2 − (223 − 60)2 ]2 + 2 [(223 ∗ 3.336) + (60 ∗ 2.947)]
𝐿 = 1674.083 + 460.374
𝐿 = 2134.457 𝑚𝑚 = 2.134457 𝑚
𝑒𝑥𝑝(𝑓𝜙) = 𝑒𝑥𝑝(0.8 ∗ 2.974) = 10.5656
The belt speed is
𝜋 ∗ 𝑑1 ∗ 𝑛 𝜋 ∗ 0.06 ∗ 750
𝑉= =
60 60
𝑚
𝑉 = 2.356 ⁄𝑠
𝑊 = 𝛾𝑏𝑡
1𝑖𝑏𝑓 = 4.4482𝑁, So 0.037 𝑖𝑛3 = 10043.56 ⁄𝑚 3
1𝑖𝑛 = 0.0254𝑚
From shegley 9th edition, table 17-3 the width of the belt is taken to be 1.25𝑖𝑛 = 0.03175𝑚
𝑊 = 10043.56 ∗ 2.794 ∗ 10−3 ∗ 0.03175 = 0.891 𝑁⁄𝑚

𝑤 2 0.891
𝐹𝑐 = 𝑉 = ∗ (2.356)2 = 0.504
𝑔 9.81
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 50
2019
𝑁 = 750 𝑟𝑝𝑚
2 ∗ 𝜋 ∗ 𝑛 2 ∗ 𝜋 ∗ 750
𝜔= = = 78.54 𝑟𝑎𝑑⁄𝑠
60 60
𝑇= 𝑁

63025 ∗ 5 ∗ 1.5 ∗ 1.1
𝑇 = = 693.275 𝐼𝑏𝑓. 𝑖𝑛
750
𝑇 = 693.275 ∗ 4.4482 ∗ 0.0254 = 78.329 𝑁𝑚
2𝑇 2∗78.329
(𝐹1 )𝑎 – 𝐹2 = = = 2610.973𝑁
𝑑 0.06

(𝐹1 )𝑎 = 𝑏 ∗ 𝐹𝑎 ∗ 𝐶𝑝∗ 𝐶𝑣
𝑖𝑛 = 10507.56 ⁄𝑚 From Shigley’s 9 ed. table
th
17-2)
(𝐹1 )𝑎 = 0.03175 ∗ 10507.56 ∗ 0.73
(𝐹1 )𝑎 = 2435.4 𝑁
Then
𝐹2  (𝐹1 )𝑎  [(𝐹1 )𝑎  𝐹2 ]
𝐹2 = 2610.973 − 2435.4 = 175.573 𝑁
(𝐹1 )𝑎 + 𝐹2 2435.4 − 175.573

𝐹𝑖 = − 𝐹𝑐 = − 0.504
2 2
𝐹𝑖 = 1129.4095 𝑁
1 (𝐹1 )𝑎 − 𝐹𝑐 1 2435.4 − 0.504

𝑓′ = ln = ln = 0.78
𝜙 𝐹2 − 𝐹𝑐 2.947 175.573 − 0.504
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 51
2019
4.3.5 Design of sprocket and chain to drive the wheel

The sprocket and the chain is selected instead of belt to drive the wheel because no slip takes place during
chain drive, hence perfect velocity ratio is obtained and gives high transmission efficiency up to 98
percent.
Fig Sprocket and chain

𝑉𝑅 = 𝑁1/𝑁2 = 𝑇2/𝑇1
Where N1 = Speed of rotation of smaller sprocket in rpm
N2= Speed of rotation of larger sprocket in rpm
T1= Number of teeth on the smaller sprocket, and
T2= Number of teeth on the larger sprocket.
Taking the velocity ratio be 2 for roller type chain, the number of teeth of the smaller sprocket from the
standard table (table 21.5 R.S. Khurmi) can be taken as: - 𝑇1 = 27.
Number of teeth on the larger sprocket can be calculated
𝑇2 𝑇2
= 27 = 2 Implies 𝑇2 = 54
𝑇1
The rotational speed of the smaller sprocket is 750 rpm, the speed of the larger sprocket can be calculated
𝑁1 750
𝑁2
= 𝑁1
= 2, 𝑁2 = 375 𝑟𝑝𝑚
Assuming the harvester works for 8 hours per day with the constant load, and the machine is lubricated
periodically.
Load factor𝐾1 = 1, for constant load
Lubrication factor K2= 1.5, for periodic lubrication
Rating factor𝐾3 = 1, for 8 hours per day
Therefore service factor can be determine
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 52
2019
Service factor 𝐾𝑠 = 𝐾1 ∗ 𝐾2 ∗ 𝐾3 = 1 ∗ 1.5 ∗ 1 = 1.5

The power required to roll the machine is 𝑊𝑟 = 1.40004 ℎ𝑝 = 1.000028571 𝐾𝑊
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 = 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝐾𝑠 = 1𝐾𝑊 ∗ 1.5 = 1.5 𝐾𝑊

Selection: 08B roller chain with the power requirement of 2.72 KW. [17]
Iso chain number 08B
Pitch 𝑝 = 12.7𝑚𝑚
Maximum roller diameter 𝑑1 = 8.51 𝑚𝑚

Width between inner plates (maximum) 𝑏1 = 7.75𝑚𝑚
Transverse pitch 𝑃1 = 13.92𝑚𝑚
Breaking load minimum, simple type= 17.8 𝐾𝑁
Pitch circle diameter and pitch circle velocity can be calculated as:
a) Pitch circle diameter of the smaller sprocket is:
180 180
𝐷1 = 𝑃 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑐 ( 𝑇1 ) = 12.7𝑚𝑚𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑐 ( 27 ) = 109.395𝑚𝑚, 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑑1 = 110𝑚𝑚
b) Pitch circle diameter of the larger sprocket is:

180 180
𝐷2 = 𝑃 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑐 ( 𝑇2 ) = 12.7𝑚𝑚𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑐 ( 54 ) = 218.42𝑚𝑚, 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑑2 = 220𝑚𝑚
c) Pitch line velocity of the smaller sprocket is:

𝜋𝐷1∗𝑁1 750
𝑉1 = 60
= 𝜋 ∗ 110𝑚𝑚 ∗ 60
= 4.3197𝑚/𝑠
d) The load on the chain F
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 53
2019
𝐹 = 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟/𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦

1.000028571𝐾𝑊
𝐹= = 0.2315𝐾𝑁
4.3197 𝑚/𝑠
𝐹𝐵 𝐾𝑁
𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑦 = 𝐹
= 17.8 0.2315𝐾𝑁 = 76.889
Comparing to the factor of safety stated in table 21.2 Khurmi. (2005) for roller chain at a given speed of
the small sprocket, calculated by interpolating between the two speeds= 14.4, it is safe.
For the best result, the minimum center to center distance between the smaller and the larger sprocket
should be 30 to 50 times of the pitch. Let’s take𝐶 = 30 𝑝.
𝐶 = 30 ∗ 𝑝 = 30 ∗ 12.7𝑚𝑚 = 𝟑𝟖𝟏 𝐦𝐦
In order to accommodate initial sag in the chain, the value of the center distance obtained from the above
equation should be decreased by 2 to 5 mm. let take 3mm.
Therefore the corrected minimum allowable center to center distance between the larger and the smaller
sprocket becomes
𝑪 = 𝟑𝟖𝟏𝒎𝒎 – 𝟑𝒎𝒎 = 𝟑𝟕𝟖 𝒎𝒎
The number of chain links can be calculated as
T1 + T2 2𝐶 𝑇2−𝑇1 2 𝑃
K= + +( ) ∗
2 𝑝 2𝜋 𝐶
27 + 54 2∗378𝑚𝑚 54−27 2 12.7𝑚𝑚

K= + +( ) ∗ = 100.6479
2 12.7𝑚𝑚 2𝜋 378𝑚𝑚
Say 𝐾 = 101
The length of the chain can be calculated
𝐿 = 𝐾 ∗ 𝑝 = 101 ∗ 12.7 𝑚𝑚 = 1282.7𝑚𝑚

The dimensions of the sprockets can be calculate as
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 54
2019
For the smaller sprocket For the larger sprocket
Tooth flank radius Tooth flank radius

𝑟𝑒 = 0.12 𝑑1 (𝑇 + 2) 𝑟𝑒 = 0.12 𝑑1 (𝑇 + 2)
𝑟𝑒 = 0.12 ∗ 8.51𝑚𝑚 (27 + 2) 𝑟𝑒 = 0.12 ∗ 8.51𝑚𝑚 (54 + 2)
𝑟𝑒 = 29.6148 𝑟𝑒 = 57.1872
Top diameter(Da) Top diameter(Da)

1.6 1.6
𝐷𝑎 = 𝐷 + 𝑝 (1 − 𝑇 ) − 𝑑1 𝐷𝑎 = 𝐷 + 𝑝 (1 − 𝑇 ) − 𝑑1
1.6 1.6
𝐷𝑎 = 110 + 12.7𝑚𝑚 (1 − 27 ) − 8.51𝑚𝑚 𝐷𝑎 = 220 + 12.7𝑚𝑚 (1 − 54 ) − 8.51𝑚𝑚
𝐷𝑎 = 113.437 𝐷𝑎 = 223.8137
Roller seating radius (ri ) Roller seating radius (ri )
𝑟𝑖 = 0.505𝑑1 = 0.505 ∗ 8.51 = 4.29755 𝑟𝑖 = 0.505𝑑1 = 0.505 ∗ 8.51 = 4.29755
Root diameter Df Root diameter Df

𝐷𝑓 = 𝐷 − 2𝑟𝑖 = 110𝑚𝑚 − 2 ∗ 4.29755 𝐷𝑓 = 𝐷 − 2𝑟𝑖 = 220𝑚𝑚 − 2 ∗ 4.29755
𝐷𝑓 = 110𝑚𝑚 − 2 ∗ 4.29755 𝐷𝑓 = 220𝑚𝑚 − 2 ∗ 4.29755
𝐷𝑓 = 101.4049 𝑚𝑚 𝐷𝑓 = 211.4049 𝑚𝑚
Roller seating angle (α) Roller seating angle (α)

90 90
𝛼 = 120 − 𝑇 = 120 − 27 = 116.6670 90 90
𝛼 = 120 − = 120 − = 118.3330
𝑇 54
Tooth width bf1 Tooth width bf1
𝑏𝑓1 = 0.93 ∗ 𝑏1 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑝 ≤ 12.7𝑚𝑚 𝑏𝑓1 = 0.93 ∗ 𝑏1 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑝 ≤ 12.77𝑚𝑚
𝑏𝑓1 = 0.93 ∗ 7.75mm = 7.2075 mm 𝑏𝑓1 = 0.93 ∗ 7.75mm = 7.2075 mm
Tooth height above the pitch polygon Tooth height above the pitch polygon
ℎ𝑎 = 0.5(𝑝 − 𝑑1) = 0.5(12.7 − 8.51) ℎ𝑎 = 0.5(𝑝 − 𝑑1) = 0.5(12.7 − 8.51)
ℎ𝑎 = 0.5(12.7 − 8.51) = 2.095 𝑚𝑚 ℎ𝑎 = 0.5(12.7 − 8.51) = 2.095 𝑚𝑚
Tooth side radius rx Tooth side radius rx

𝑟𝑥 = 𝑝 = 12.7𝑚𝑚 𝑟𝑥 = 𝑝 = 12.7𝑚𝑚
Tooth side relief ba Tooth side relief ba
𝑏𝑎 = 0.1𝑝 = 12.7𝑚𝑚 𝑏𝑎 = 0.1𝑝 = 12.7𝑚𝑚
4.4 Shaft design

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 their motion.
The general layout of the shaft, including the location of the sprocket and the pulley must be known to
obtain shear force and bending moment diagrams and perform the force and strength analysis of the shaft.
After calculating the maximum bending moment and torque we will find the diameter of the shaft and we
will perform stress and strength analysis.
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 55
2019
Bending, torsion, and axial stresses may be present in both midrange and alternating components. Axial
loads are usually comparatively very small at critical locations where bending and torsion dominate, so
they will be left out of the following equations. The fluctuating stresses due to bending and torsion for a
solid shaft with round cross section, are given by
32∗𝑀𝑎 32∗𝑀𝑚
𝛿𝑎 = 𝐾𝑓 𝜋∗𝑑3
, 𝛿𝑚 = 𝐾𝑓 𝜋∗𝑑3
16 ∗ 𝑇𝑎 16 ∗ 𝑇𝑚
𝜏𝑎 = 𝐾𝑓𝑠 , 𝜏𝑚 = 𝐾𝑓
𝜋 ∗ 𝑑3 𝜋 ∗ 𝑑3
Where 𝑀𝑎 = alternating bending moments

𝑀𝑚 = midrange bending moments
𝑇𝑚 = midrange torques
𝑇𝑎 = alternating torques
𝐾𝑓 = Stress - concentration factors for bending
𝐾𝑓𝑠 = Stress − concentration factors for torsion
The von Misses stresses for rotating round, solid shafts, neglecting axial loads, are given by
𝛿′𝑎 = (𝛿𝑎2 + 3𝜏𝑎2 )1/2
2 2 )1/2
𝛿′𝑚 = (𝛿𝑚 + 3𝜏𝑚
But Mm = Ta = 0 so,
𝛿′𝑎 = (𝛿𝑎2 )1/2
2 )1/2
𝛿′𝑚 = (3𝜏𝑚
The diameter of the shaft is given by
1 1 1/3
16𝑛 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2
𝑑=( { [4(𝐾𝑓 𝑀𝑎 ) + 3(𝐾𝑓𝑠 𝑇𝑎 ) ] + [4(𝐾𝑓 𝑀𝑚 ) + 3(𝐾𝑓𝑠 𝑇𝑚 ) ] })
𝜋 𝑠𝑒 𝑆𝑢𝑡
Se = endurance limit at the critical location of a machine part in the geometry and condition of use
𝑆𝑒 = 𝐾𝑎 𝐾𝑏 𝐾𝑐 𝐾𝑑 𝐾𝑒 𝐾𝑓 𝑆𝑒′
𝐾𝑎 = surface condition modification factor
𝐾𝑏 = size modification factor
𝐾𝑐 = load modification factor
𝐾𝑑 = temperature modification factor
𝐾𝑒 = reliability factor
𝐾𝑓 = miscellaneous-effects modification factor
𝑆𝑒′ = rotary-beam test specimen endurance limit
𝑆𝑒′ = 0.5𝑆𝑢𝑡
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 56
2019
4.4.1 Wheel axle

Shaft layout for the axle
𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 = 1.5 𝐾𝑊

𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 375 𝑟𝑝𝑚
𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑡(𝜃) = 1650 = 2.88 𝑟𝑎𝑑

𝐶𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛(𝜇) = 0.3
𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑡 = 220𝑚𝑚
Let us calculate the power from the tension and velocity of the sprocket
𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 = (𝑇1 − 𝑇2 ) 𝑉
1.5 = (𝑇1 − 𝑇2 ) ∗ 4.3197
𝑇1 − 𝑇2 = 347.246 𝑁 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 1
𝑇1
2.3𝑙𝑜𝑔 =𝜇∗𝜃
𝑇2
𝑇
𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑇1 = 2.88 ∗ 0.3⁄2.3 = 0.864⁄2.3 = 0.37565
2
𝑇1
= 2.375 ⇒ 𝑇1 = 2.375 𝑇2 … … … … … … … … … … … . . 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 2
𝑇2
Now solving the two equations
2.375 (𝑇2 − 𝑇2 ) = 347.246
1.375 𝑇2 347.246
=
1.375 1.375
𝑻𝟐 = 𝟐𝟓𝟐. 𝟓𝟒 𝑵
And 𝑇1 = 2.375 ∗ 𝑇2 = 2.375 ∗ 252.54
𝑻𝟏 = 𝟔𝟎𝟎 𝑵
The torque acting on the sprocket
𝑇 = (𝑇1 − 𝑇2 ) ∗ 𝑅𝑠𝑝𝑟
= (600 − 252.54) ∗ 110 𝑚𝑚
= 38.2 𝑁𝑚
𝐶𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 378 𝑚𝑚
(220 − 110)⁄
sin 𝛼 = 𝐷 − 𝑑⁄2𝐶 = 2 ∗ 378
sin 𝛼 = 0.14550
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 57
2019
𝛼 = sin−1 0.1455 = 8.360

Shaft layout
sprocket
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 5 + 22 + 33 + 8 + 20 + 144
= 232𝑚𝑚
5 65
17 32.79
7.21 60
Tension side
600 𝑇2𝑦 = 600 ∗ sin 8.36 = 87.235 𝑁
8.360 𝑇2𝑧 = 600 ∗ cos 8.36 = 593.624 𝑁
Slack side
252.54
8.360 𝐹1𝑦 = 252.54 ∗ sin 8.36 = 36.7 𝑁
𝐹1𝑧 = 252.54 ∗ cos 8.36 = 249.86 𝑁
𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 = 87.235 + 36.72 = 124 𝑁
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 58
2019
𝑇𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 = 593.624 + 249.86 = 843.5 𝑁
Shear force and bending moment diagram
2207.25 𝑁 𝑅𝐴𝑦 124 𝑁
2.5 41.29
𝑅𝐴𝑧 843.5 N
X-y plane
2207.25 𝑁 𝑅𝐴𝑦 124 𝑁
2.5 mm 41.29mm
Σ F = 0 → 𝑹𝑨𝒚 = 2207.25 − 124
𝑹𝑨𝒚 = 2083.25 𝑁
Shear force diagram

2207.25 N
124 N
Bending moment diagram
X-z plane
𝑹𝑨𝒛 843.5 N
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 59
2019
𝑹𝑨𝒛 = −𝟖𝟒𝟑. 𝟓 𝑵
Shear force diagram
843.5 N
Bending moment diagram
𝟏𝟏𝟖𝟎𝟗 𝑵𝒎𝒎
𝟑𝟕𝟏𝟏𝟒 𝑵𝒎𝒎
The resultant bending moment is
𝑅𝑀𝑎𝑥 = √29165.52 + 118092
= 44999 𝑁𝑚𝑚 = 44.999 𝑁𝑚
= 𝟒𝟓 𝑵𝒎𝒎
The resultant torque is
𝑻 = 𝟑𝟖. 𝟐 𝑵𝒎
Once we calculated the maximum moment and torque we can calculate the diameter of the shaft
1 1/3
16𝑛 2(𝐾𝑓 𝑀𝑎 ) 1 2 2
𝑑=( { + [3(𝐾𝑓𝑠 𝑇𝑚 ) ] })
To calculate 𝑠𝑒 first we need to know the factors.
The team selected hot rolled 1010 steel from Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design 9th ed table A-20
With
𝑇𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ(𝑆𝑢𝑡 ) = 320 𝑀𝑝𝑎
𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ = 180 𝑀𝑝𝑎
1. Surface condition modification factor
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 60
2019
𝐾𝑎 = 𝑎𝑆𝑢𝑡 𝑏 , where a and b are constants which depend on the surface finish
From Shigley’s 9th Ed table 6.2 for hot rolled steel: - 𝑎 = 57.7 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏 = −0.718
𝐾𝑎 = 57.7 ∗ 320−0.718 = 0.91723
2. Size modification factor

It depends on the diameter of the shaft but, since we did not know the diameter of the shaft let
𝐾𝑏 = 1
3. Load modification factor
From Shigley’s 9th Ed equation 6-26 load factors for bending is 1. Since the axle is mainly subjected to
bending
𝐾𝑐 = 1
4. Temperature modification factor
Since we did not exactly know the working temperature let
𝐾𝑑 = 1
5. Reliability factor
From Shigley’s 9th Ed table 6.5, for reliability of 99.999%
𝐾𝑒 = 0.659
6. Miscellaneous-effects modification factor
It is usually between 0.5 and 0.9 and let us take,
𝐾𝑓 = 0.6
𝑆𝑒′ = 0.5𝑆𝑢𝑡 = 0.5 ∗ 320 = 160 𝑀𝑝𝑎
So 𝑺𝒆 = 0.91723 ∗ 1 ∗ 1 ∗ 1 ∗ 0.659 ∗ 0.6 ∗ 1609
𝑺𝒆 = 𝟓𝟖. 𝟎𝟑 𝑴𝒑𝒂
Stress - concentration factors for bending and torsion
𝐾𝑓 = 1 + 𝑞(𝐾𝑡 − 1)
𝐾𝑓𝑠 = 1 + 𝑞(𝐾𝑡𝑠 − 1)
From Shigley’s 9th Ed figure A-15-9
𝐷⁄ = 1.10 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑟⁄ = 0.10 𝑠𝑜, 𝐾𝑡 = 1.6
𝑑 𝑑
From Shigley’s 9th Ed figure A-15-8
𝐷⁄ = 1.10 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑟⁄ = 0.10 𝑠𝑜, 𝐾𝑡𝑠 = 1.2
𝑑 𝑑
Notch sensitivity (q) from Shigley’s 9th Ed figure 6.20 and figure 6.21
For 𝑟 = 3 𝑚𝑚 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑆𝑢𝑡 = 0.32 𝐺𝑝𝑎, 𝒒 = 𝟎. 𝟕𝟓 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝟎. 𝟖 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 61
2019
𝐾𝑓 = 1 + 0.75(1.6 − 1) = 1.45
𝐾𝑓𝑠 = 1 + 0.8(1.2 − 1) = 1.16
Giving a factor of safety 𝑛 = 2
1/3
16 ∗ 2 2(1.45 ∗ 45) 1 1
𝑑=( { 6
+ 6
[3(1.16 ∗ 38.2)2 ]2 })
𝜋 58 ∗ 10 320 ∗ 10
𝑑 = 2.94 ∗ 10−2 𝑚
𝑑 = 29.4 𝑚𝑚 ≈ 30 𝑚𝑚
4.4.2 Main shaft

Shaft layout
𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 = 1.5 + 0.2 = 1.7 𝐾𝑊
The 1.5 KW power is to drive the axle of the wheel through the chain. The power to drive the binder is
very small compared to the other power requirements so we estimated it to be 0.2206 KW
𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 750 𝑟𝑝𝑚
𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑡(𝜃) = 1650 = 2.88 𝑟𝑎𝑑
𝐶𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛(𝜇) = 0.3
Now power will be
𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 = (𝑇1 − 𝑇2 ) 𝑉
1.7 = (𝑇1 − 𝑇2 ) ∗ 2.356
𝑇1 − 𝑇2 = 721.56 𝑁 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 1
𝑇1
2.3𝑙𝑜𝑔 =𝜇∗𝜃
𝑇2
𝑇
𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑇1 = 2.88 ∗ 0.3⁄2.3 = 0.864⁄2.3 = 0.37565
2
𝑇1
= 2.375 ⇒ 𝑇1 = 2.375 𝑇2 … … … … … … … … … … … . . 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 2
𝑇2
Now solving the two equations
2.375 (𝑇2 − 𝑇2 ) = 721.56

1.375 𝑇2 721.56
=
1.375 1.375
𝑻𝟐 = 𝟓𝟐𝟒. 𝟕𝟕 𝑵
And 𝑇1 = 2.375 ∗ 𝑇2 = 2.375 ∗ 524.77
𝑻𝟏 = 𝟏𝟐𝟒𝟔. 𝟑𝟑 𝑵
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 62
2019
The torque acting on the shaft

𝑇 = (𝑇1 − 𝑇2 ) ∗ 𝑅𝑠𝑝𝑟
= (1246.33 − 524.77) ∗ 30 𝑚𝑚
= 21.65 𝑁𝑚
𝐶𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 841 𝑚𝑚

(223 − 60)⁄
sin 𝛼 = 𝐷 − 𝑑⁄2𝐶 = 2 ∗ 841
sin 𝛼 = 0.09690
𝛼 = sin−1 0.0969 = 5.60
Tension side
5.60 𝑇1𝑦 = 1246.33 ∗ sin 5.6 = 121.62 𝑁
𝑇1𝑧 = 1246.33 ∗ cos 8.36 = 1240.38 𝑁
1246.33 N
Slack side
5.60 𝑇2𝑧 = 524.77 ∗ cos 5.6 = 522.26 𝑁
𝑇2𝑦 = 524.77 ∗ sin 5.6 = 51.21 𝑁
524.77 N
There is another pulley receiving the belt which came from and its speed is
𝑉 =𝑟∗𝜔
2∗𝜋∗𝑁
= 0.03 ∗
60
= 0.03 ∗ 2 ∗ 𝜋 ∗ 1500⁄60
= 4.712 𝑚⁄𝑠
𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 = (𝑇1 − 𝑇2 ) ∗ 𝑉 , but we have aready selected a 5ℎ𝑝 (3571.43𝑊) engine so
3571.43 = (𝑇1 − 𝑇2 ) ∗ 4.712
(𝑇1 − 𝑇2 ) = 757.944 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 1
𝑇1
2.3 log = 𝜇 ∗ 𝜃 = 0.3 ∗ 2.88 = 0.864
𝑇2
𝑇1 = 2.375 ∗ 𝑇2 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . . 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 2
2.375𝑇2 − 𝑇2 = 757.944
𝑇2 = 757.944⁄1.375 = 551.23 then
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 63
2019
𝑇1 = 2.375 ∗ 𝑇2 = 2.375 ∗ 551.23

= 1309.2 𝑁
Since the pulleys are arranged horizontally, there is no any inclination and the forces exerted are only
tangential.
So 𝑇1 + 𝑇2 = 1309.2 + 551.23 = 1860.4 𝑁
The main shaft is a steped shaft with a general layout: -
Assuming the deadweight of the shaft be 280N
For the X-Y plane
Using singularity function

𝑞 = −124 < 𝑥 − 12.5 >−1 + 𝑅𝑦1 < 𝑥 − 57.5 >−1 − 280 < 𝑥 − 441 >−1 − 172.83
< 𝑥 − 711.5 >−1 + 𝑅𝑦2 < 𝑥 − 824.5 >−1 − 124 < 𝑥 − 869.5 >−1
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 64
2019
𝑉 = −124 < 𝑥 − 12.5 >0 + 𝑅𝑦1 < 𝑥 − 57.5 >0 − 280 < 𝑥 − 441 >−1 − 172.83
< 𝑥 − 711.5 >0 + 𝑅𝑦2 < 𝑥 − 824.5 >0 − 124 < 𝑥 − 869.5 >0
As 𝑋 ⇒ 882+ , 𝑣 = 0
𝑉 = −124 + 𝑅𝑦1 − 280 − 172.83 + 𝑅𝑦2 − 124 = 0

𝑅𝑦1 + 𝑅𝑦2 = 700.83 𝑁 … … … … … … … … … … … … … . 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 1
𝑀 = −124 < 𝑥 − 12.5 > +𝑅𝑦1 < 𝑥 − 57.5 > −280 < 𝑥 − 441 > −172.83 < 𝑥 − 711.5 > +𝑅𝑦2
< 𝑥 − 824.5 > −124 < 𝑥 − 869.5 >
As 𝑋 ⇒ 882+ , 𝑀 = 0
𝑀 = −124 < 882 − 12.5 > +𝑅𝑦1 < 882 − 57.5 > −280 < 882 − 441 > −172.83 < 882 − 711.5
> +𝑅𝑦2 < 882 − 824.5 > −124 < 882 − 869.5 > = 0
9.01 𝑅𝑦1 + 𝑅𝑦2 = 2866.83623 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 2
Solve for equation 1 and 2
𝑅𝑦1 + 𝑅𝑦2 = 700.83 𝑁

9.01 𝑅𝑦1 + 𝑅𝑦2 = 2866.83623
𝑅𝑦1 = 270.382 𝑁
𝑅𝑦2 = 430.448 𝑁
Shear force and bending moment diagrams
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 65
2019
For the X-Z plane
Using singularity function:
𝑉 = 843 < 𝑥 − 12.5 >0 − 𝑅𝑧1 < 𝑥 − 57.5 >0 + 1860.4 < 𝑥 − 103 >−1 + 1762.64
< 𝑥 − 711.5 >0 − 𝑅𝑧2 < 𝑥 − 790.5 >0 + 843.5 < 𝑥 − 869.5 >0
As 𝑋 ⇒ 882+ , 𝑣 = 0
843 − 𝑅𝑧1 + 1860.4 + 1762.64 − 𝑅𝑧2 + 843.5 = 0
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 66
2019
Rz1 + Rz2 = 5310.04 ……………………… Equation 1

𝑀 = 843 < 𝑥 − 12.5 > −𝑅𝑧1 < 𝑥 − 57.5 > +1860.4 < 𝑥 − 103 > +1762.64 < 𝑥 − 711.5 > −𝑅𝑧2
< 𝑥 − 790.5 > +843.5 < 𝑥 − 869.5 >
As 𝑋 ⇒ 882+ , 𝑀 = 0
733423.25 − 𝑅𝑧1 ∗ 824.5 + 1449251.6 + 300530.12 − 91.5 𝑅𝑧2 + 10543.75 = 0

9.01Rz1 + Rz2 = 27254.08437 ………………………. Equation 2
Solve both equations simultaneously
Rz1 + Rz2 = 5310.04

9.01Rz1 + Rz2 = 27254.08437
Rz1 = 2739.581 N
Rz2 = 2570.459 N
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 67
2019
Maximum moment from the bending moment diagram
𝑀 𝑚𝑎𝑥 = ((50557.497)2 + (60374.3635)2 )^ 0.5
𝑴 𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝟕𝟖𝟕𝟒𝟕. 𝟐𝟏𝟕𝟓𝟒 𝑵𝒎𝒎

The maximum torque on the shaft is
𝑻𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝟒𝟓𝟒𝟕𝟖. 𝟐 𝑵𝒎𝒎 = 𝟒𝟓. 𝟒𝟕𝟖𝟐 𝑵𝒎
Once we calculated the maximum moment and torque we can calculate the diameter of the shaft
1 1/3
16𝑛 2(𝐾𝑓 𝑀𝑎 ) 1 2 2
𝑑=( { + [3(𝐾𝑓𝑠 𝑇𝑚 ) ] })
To calculate 𝑠𝑒 first we need to know the factors.
The team selected hot rolled 1020 steel from with,
𝑇𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ(𝑆𝑢𝑡 ) = 380 𝑀𝑝𝑎
𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ = 210 𝑀𝑝𝑎
1. Surface condition modification factor
𝐾𝑎 = 𝑎𝑆𝑢𝑡 𝑏 , where a and b are constants which depend on the surface finish
For hot rolled steel: - 𝑎 = 57.7 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏 = −0.718
𝐾𝑎 = 57.7 ∗ 380−0.718 = 0.810758
2. Size modification factor

It depends on the diameter of the shaft but, since we did not know the diameter of the shaft let
𝐾𝑏 = 0.8
3. Load modification factor
For bending is 1. Since the axle is mainly subjected to bending
𝐾𝑐 = 1
4. Temperature modification factor
Since we did not exactly know the working temperature let
𝐾𝑑 = 1
5. Reliability factor
For reliability of 99%
𝐾𝑒 = 0.814
6. Miscellaneous-effects modification factor
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 68
2019
It is usually between 0.5 and 0.9 and let us take,

𝐾𝑓 = 0.75
𝑆𝑒′ = 0.5𝑆𝑢𝑡 = 0.5 ∗ 380 = 190 𝑀𝑝𝑎
So 𝑺𝒆 = 0.810758 ∗ 0.8 ∗ 1 ∗ 1 ∗ 0.814 ∗ 0.75 ∗ 190
𝑺𝒆 = 𝟕𝟓. 𝟐𝟑 𝑴𝒑𝒂
Stress - concentration factors for bending and torsion
𝐷⁄ = 1.10 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑟⁄ = 0.10
𝑑 𝑑
𝐾𝑓 = 2.7
𝐾𝑓𝑠 = 2.2
Giving a factor of safety 𝑛 = 2
1/3
16 ∗ 2 2(2.7 ∗ 78.747) 1 1
2 ]2 })
𝑑=( { + [3(2.2 ∗ 45.4782)
𝜋 75.23 ∗ 106 380 ∗ 106
𝑑 = 3.96 ∗ 10−2 𝑚
𝑑 = 39.4 𝑚𝑚 ≈ 𝟒𝟎 𝑚𝑚
This is the largest diameter of the shaft and the other diameters are found from the diameter ratio.
𝐷⁄ = 1.10 ⇒ 𝑑 = 𝐷⁄
𝑑 1.10
𝑑1 = 40⁄1.10 = 𝟑𝟔 𝑚𝑚
𝑑1 = 36⁄1.10 = 𝟑𝟐 𝑚𝑚
𝑑1 = 32⁄1.10 = 𝟐𝟗 𝑚𝑚
4.5 Finger Conveyor design

The finger conveyors are used to collect the crop and guide it for binding. It has a four bar mechanism
with the following dimensions. The rpm of the disk and the link connected to the disk (CD) is 570 and the
crank AB rotates at 140rpm. The disk radius is 110 mm and all other dimensions are in mm.
𝑁𝐴𝐵 = 140 𝑟𝑝𝑚
𝑁 140 570
𝜔𝐴𝐵 = 2𝜋 60 = 2 ∗ 𝜋 60
= 14.66 𝑟𝑎𝑑⁄𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝜔𝐶𝐷 = 2 ∗ 𝜋 60 = 59.7
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 69
2019
Finger conveyor
The velocity of point B is calculated from the angular velocity of link AB and its length
𝑉𝐵 = 𝜔𝐴𝐵 ∗ 𝑙𝐴𝐵
𝑉𝐵 = 14.66 ∗ 0.33 = 4.84 𝑚⁄𝑠
We need to locate the instantaneous centers and find the angular velocity of link BC
To locate the instantaneous centers we need to follow the following procedures [18].
A. The number of instantaneous centers depends on the number of links and it is given by
𝑛(𝑛 − 1)
𝑁= 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑁 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑠
2
4(4 − 1)
𝑁= =6
2
B. Now we simply locate the permanent instantaneous centers by visual inspection.
C. After this we locate the remaining neither fixed nor permanent instantaneous centers by Aron
hold Kennedy’s theory and is shown by a circular diagram below.
D. Next we mark points on the circle and join them in the following order, 1 to 2, 2to 3, 3to 4, 4 to 1.
This is to indicate the instantaneous center already located.
E. By joining point 1 and 3 diagonally we create two triangles. The instantaneous center I13 lies on
the intersection of the lines joining the points I12, I23, I34 and I14 because it is common to both
triangles. Thus center I13 is located. We mark the number 5 on the diagonal line 13.
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 70
2019
F. Now we join point 2 and 4 to form another two triangles. The instantaneous center I24 lies on the
intersection of the lines joining the points I23, I34, I14 and I12 because the diagonal side 24 is
common to both triangles. Thus center I24 is located and we mark point 6 on the line 24. Thus all
the six instantaneous centers are located.
Angular velocity of link BC
The velocity of point B on link BC can be calculated from the angular velocity and instantaneous
center
𝑉𝐵 = 𝜔𝐵𝑐 ∗ 𝐼13
By measurement we find that the distance from I13 to point B = 485 mm = 0.485m
𝑉𝐵
𝑆𝑜 𝜔𝐵𝐶 = ⁄𝐼 = 4.84⁄0.485 = 9.97 𝑟𝑎𝑑⁄𝑠
13
The length of link or crank CD is equal to the radius of the circle which is 110 mm or 0.11m. Therefore,
velocity of point C with respect to D i.e. with respect to the fixed point D is,
Vectors cd = VCD = Vc = 𝜔CD ∗ 𝑙𝐶𝐷 = 59.7 rad⁄s ∗ 0.11 = 6.56 m⁄s
VC = 6.56 m⁄s
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 71
2019
1. Both A and D are on the fixed link AD so, we can take them as one point on the velocity diagram. The
velocity of point B is represented by vector perpendicular to the link AB since point A is fixed.
Vector ab = VAB = V B = 4.48 m/s
2. Now from point b, draw vector Bc perpendicular to CB to represent the velocity of C with respect to B
(𝑖. 𝑒. VCB ) and from point d, draw vector dc perpendicular to CD to represent the velocity of C with
respect to D. The vectors BC and dc intersect at b and by measurement, we find that
VAB = VB = vector ab = 0.364 m⁄s
The length of link BA is 330 mm so the angular velocity of link AB is
VAB 0.364
ωBA = = = 1.103 rad⁄s
LAB 0.33
The vectors BC and ba intersect at c. By measurement, we find that VBC = vectors BC = 0.254 m⁄s
VBC 0.254
ωBC = = = 0.833 𝑟𝑎𝑑⁄𝑠
LBC 0.305
The angular velocity of link AB
VBA 0.364
ωAB = ⁄L = = 1.103 rad⁄s
BA 0.33
Angular acceleration of link
We can calculate the radial component of the acceleration of C with respect to D
2
VCD 2
ωrCD = ωCD = ωC = = 6.56 ⁄0.11 = 391.2 rad⁄s
lCD
Radial component of the acceleration of B with respect to C,
2
VCB 2
ωrCB = = 0.254 ⁄0.305 = 0.211 rad⁄s
lCB
And radial component of the acceleration of B with respect to A (or the acceleration of B),
2
VBA 2
ωrCB = = 0.364 ⁄0.33 = 0.4015 rad⁄s
BA
The acceleration diagram is drawn as follows:
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 72
2019
1. Since d and a are fixed points, therefore these points lie at one place in the acceleration diagram. Draw
vector d'c' parallel to DC, to some suitable scale, to represent the radial component of acceleration of C
with respect to D or acceleration of C, such that
Vectors D′ C′ = arCD = 6.56 m⁄s
2. From point c', draw vector c' x parallel to CB to represent the radial component of acceleration of B
with respect to C i.e. arBC such that
Vectors C ′x = arBC = 0.254 m⁄s
3. Now from point A', draw vector A'y parallel to AB to represent the radial component of the
acceleration of B with respect to A i.e. BA ab such that
Vectors A ′x = arBA = 0.364 m⁄s
4. From point y, draw vector yb' perpendicular to AB to represent the tangential component of
acceleration of B with respect to 𝐴 i.e. arBA .
5. The vectors xb' and yb' intersect at b'. 𝐽𝑜𝑖𝑛 𝑑 ′𝑏 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑′ 𝑏′ And by measurement, we find that
atBc = Vectors B′ = 0.67 rad⁄ 2 , atBA = Vectors b′y
s
We know that angular acceleration of link CB,
atBc 0.254
atBc = = = 0.833 rad⁄s
CB 0.305
And angular acceleration of link BA,
atBA 0.254
atBc = = = 0.77 rad⁄s
BA 0.33
4.6 Standard elements selection
4.6.1 Bearing on the main shaft
Bearings are mechanical elements used to allow relative motion between two parts and are manufactured
to take pure radial loads, pure thrust loads, or a combination of the two kinds of loads. Both ball and
tapered bearings will take radial load as well as thrust loads. Cylindrical roller bearings can only resist
radial loads. Since there is no axial component of load on the reaction of the bearings we can use
cylindrical roller bearings for the design. So, roller bearings are selected and the next is calculating
catalog load rating C10.
We have two bearings in the main shaft which is:
Left bearing
𝑇𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 (𝑊𝑡 ) = 2739.581𝑁 = 2.739581𝐾𝑁
𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 (𝑊𝑟 ) = 270.382𝑁 = 0.270382𝐾𝑁
𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑓𝑡 𝑖𝑠 750 𝑟𝑝𝑚
The dimensionless multiple of rating life (𝑋𝐷 ) is
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 73
2019
𝐿𝐷 60 ∗ 𝑙𝐷 ∗ 𝑛𝐷
𝑋𝐷 = =
𝐿10 𝐿10
Where 𝑙𝐷 = desired life, hours
𝐿10 = 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒 (𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒)
For most bearings the rating life is equal to 106 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 . The desired life is decided to be 5840 hours.
So, 𝑋𝐷 = 60 ∗ 5840 ∗ 750⁄106
𝑿𝑫 = 𝟐𝟔𝟐. 𝟖
Now let us calculate C10
1⁄
𝑎
𝑋𝐷
𝐶10 = 𝑎𝑓 𝐹𝐷 [ 1]
𝑋0 + (𝜃 − 𝑋0 )(1 − 𝑅𝐷 ) 𝑏
Where 𝑎𝑓 = application factor serves as a factor of safety to increase = 1.2
𝜃 = characteristic paramet
𝑋0 = guaranteed, or “minimum, ’’ value of the variate = 0.02
𝑅𝐷 = 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 90% = 0.9
(𝜃 − 𝑋0 ) = 4.439
10
𝑎 = 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏 = 1.483
3
1⁄
𝐹𝐷 = (𝑊𝑡 2 + 𝑊𝑟 2 ) 2
1⁄
𝐹𝐷 = (2.7395812 + 0.2703822 ) 2
𝐹𝐷 = 2.753 𝐾𝑁
3⁄
10
262.8
𝐶10 = 1.2 ∗ 2.753 [ 1 ]
0.02 + 4.439 ∗ (1 − 0.9)1.483
𝑪𝟏𝟎 = 𝟏𝟕. 𝟕𝟗𝟐
Right bearing
𝑋𝐷 = =
𝐿10 𝐿10
Where 𝑙𝐷 = 5840 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠
𝐿10 = 106 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 74
2019
So, 𝑋𝐷 = 60 ∗ 5840 ∗ 750⁄106
𝑿𝑫 = 𝟐𝟔𝟐. 𝟖
1⁄
𝐹𝐷 = (𝑊𝑡 2 + 𝑊𝑟 2 ) 2
1⁄
𝐹𝐷 = (2.572 + 0.432 ) 2
𝐹𝐷 = 2.606 𝐾𝑁
Now,
1⁄
𝑎
𝑋𝐷
𝐶10 = 𝑎𝑓 𝐹𝐷 [ 1]
𝑋0 + (𝜃 − 𝑋0 )(1 − 𝑅𝐷 ) 𝑏
3⁄
10
262.8
𝐶10 = 1.2 ∗ 2.606 [ 1 ]
0.02 + 4.439 ∗ (1 − 0.9)1.483
𝑪𝟏𝟎 = 𝟏𝟔. 𝟖𝟒
4.6.2 Wheel axle bearing
𝑋𝐷 = =
𝐿10 𝐿10
Where 𝑙𝐷 = 5840 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠
𝐿10 = 106 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
So, 𝑋𝐷 = 60 ∗ 5840 ∗ 375⁄ 6
10
𝑿𝑫 = 𝟏𝟑𝟏. 𝟒
1⁄
𝐹𝐷 = (𝑊𝑡 2 + 𝑊𝑟 2 ) 2
1⁄
𝐹𝐷 = (0.84352 + 2.083252 ) 2
𝐹𝐷 = 2.2475 𝐾𝑁
Now,
1⁄
𝑎
𝑋𝐷
𝐶10 = 𝑎𝑓 𝐹𝐷 [ 1]
𝑋0 + (𝜃 − 𝑋0 )(1 − 𝑅𝐷 ) 𝑏
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 75
2019
3⁄
10
262.8
𝐶10 = 1.2 ∗ 2.606 [ 1 ]
0.02 + 4.439 ∗ (1 − 0.9)1.483
𝑪𝟏𝟎 = 𝟏𝟏. 𝟖
From Shigley’s 9th Ed table 11–3 we selected a cylindrical roller bearing with
𝐵𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 30𝑚𝑚
𝑂𝑢𝑡 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 62𝑚𝑚
𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 16𝑚𝑚
𝐶10 = 22.4𝐾𝑁
References
[1]. Http://Www.Countrystudies.Us/Ethiopia
[2]. CADU 1969 Progress Report No.1. “Implement Research Section” CADU Publication No. 32.
[3]. Vignesh, Ranjith Kumar, “Design and Fabrication of Agricultural Reaper.”
[4]. Chaudhry, A. D. 1978, “Design and Development of Self-Propelled Multi-Crop Reaper.” Agricultural
Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, Vol.6.
[5]. Chaudhry, A. D. 1978, “Design and Fabrication of Multipurpose Self-Propelled Low Cost University
Reaper.” Pakistan Science Foundation Project.
[6]. Nafziger, M., V. et al. 1981, “Design and Development of Reaper- Harvester.” Publication, Los
Banos, Philippines.
[7]. Grag, I. K.et al. 1985, “Design, Development and Field Evaluation of a Tractor-Front-Mounted
Vertical Conveyor Reaper Windrower.” Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences.
[8]. Yadav, R.N.S. and Yadav, B.G. 1991, “Design and Development of Bullock Drawn Reaper” Indian
Journal of Agricultural Engineering.
[9]. Singh, T. P, et al. 1995, “Design and Development of an Animal-Drawn, Engine Operated Reaper.”
Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, Vol.26,
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 76
2019
[10]. Wikipedia org.

[11]. Henock Kifle. 1972, “Investigations on Mechanized Farming and Its Effect on Peasant Agriculture.”
Cadu Publication No. 74.
12]. Commercial test report Government of India Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare
December, 2016
[13]. https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1278260
[14]. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-1-84628-319-2_7.pdf
[15]. D.N.Sharma and S.Mukesh. 2010. Farm machinery design principles. 2nd ed. Jain brothers (New
Delhi)
[16]. Richard G.Budynas and J.Keith Nisbett. Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design. 9th Ed.
[17]. R.S.KHURMI AND J.K.GUPTA. 2005. A Textbook of Machine Design. 10 th ed. Eurasia Publishing
house (PVT.) LTD.
[18]. Richard G. Budynas and J. Keith Nisbett. 2011.
AAU/AAIT/SMIE 77

File n2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

File n2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Addis Ababa University

Addis Ababa institute of Technology

Design of a Three Wheel, Self-propelled, Barley and Wheat Reaper and

December 31, 2018

4.2.3 Engine selection (standard) ........................................................................................................ 39

1.2 Problem Statement

1.3.1 General objective:

1.4 Research Methodology

1.5 Scope and Limitations

The following issues are not addressed in our work.

 Dynamic analysis of the vibration of the engine

1.6 Significance of the Study

1.7 Work plan

May 2, May 15, Design group

1.8 Budget Plan

No Task Name Unit Qua Unit rate Total cost Remark

1 Communication (Mobile phone

2 Purchasing of writing materials

(pen, paper, exercise books) ETB - - 300

3 Transportation cost ETB - - 100

4 Printing and Documentations ETB - - 200

8 Sub total ETB - - 850

9 Miscellaneous cost (17%) ETB - - 144.5

10 Contingency cost (23%) ETB - - 195.5

11 Grand Total ETB - - 1190

Fig 1. a)sicle b) scythe

Fig 3. Patrick Bell’s reaper

Fig.4 Obed Hussey reaper

Fig.5 the McCormick Reaper

Fig.6 champion reaper

Fig 8. self propelled reaper binder machine [12]

In this process the team started with customers need.

4.2 customer needs

2 The reaper and binder Is easy to manufacture 4

3 The reaper and binder Has optimum size 3

4 The reaper and binder Bind properly 5

5 The reaper and binder Is properly balanced and oriented 3

6 The reaper and binder Has long life span 3

7 The reaper and binder Is easy for maintenance 4

8 The reaper and binder Is easy to operate 3

9 The reaper and binder With minimum loss of grains 5

10 The reaper and binder Has minimum cost 4

11 The reaper and binder Light weight 3

12 The reaper and binder Takes less time for operation 4

14 The reaper and binder Consume less fuel 2

Metric (engineering characteristics)

Metric # Need # Metric Rank Unit

2 2, 10 Availability of resources for manufacturing 4 -

3 7 Availability of resources for maintenance 4 -

4 12 Harvesting time 4 sec

5 3 compactness of the machine 3 -

8 14 Less fuel consumption 3 Liter

9 1, 3, 11 Minimum number of parts 3 -

10 12 Binding speed and feed rate 4 -

Link metric to need

Compactness of the machine

Binding speed and feed rate

Minimum number of parts

Has optimum size * * *

Is properly balanced and oriented *

Has long life span

Is easy for maintenance *