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

net/publication/43297181

A Review on Screw Conveyors Performance Evaluation During Handling Process

Article · April 2010

Source: DOAJ

CITATIONS READS
13 9,027

3 authors:

Hemad Zareiforoush Mohammad Hassan Komarizadeh

University of Guilan Urmia University
55 PUBLICATIONS 961 CITATIONS 27 PUBLICATIONS 349 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohammadreza Alizadeh
Rice Research Institute (Iran)
79 PUBLICATIONS 1,084 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammadreza Alizadeh on 13 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Scientific Review
An Interdisciplinary Open Access Journal Review Article
http://srbmag.org
Volume 2, Issue 1, Pages 55‐63, 2010

A Review on Screw Conveyors Performance Evaluation During

Handling Process
Hemad Zareiforoush1,*, Mohammad Hasan Komarizadeh1, and Mohammad Reza Alizadeh2
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering of Agricultural Machinery, Faculty of Agriculture, University of
Urmia, P.O. Box 165, Urmia‐57135, Iran
2
Rice Research Institute of Iran (RRII), P.O. Box 1658, Rasht‐41235, Iran
E‐mail addresses: hemad.zareiforoush@yahoo.com (HZ), m.h.komarizade@gmail.com (MHK),
alizadeh_mohammadreza@yahoo.com (MRA)
(Received March 25, 2010; accepted April 12, 2010)

This paper reviews recent work on screw conveyors performance evaluation during handling process,
especially in the case of agricultural grains and bulk materials. Experimental work has been mainly
carried out to determine a range of parameters, such as auger dimension, screw rotational speed,
screw clearance, conveyor intake length and conveying angle for horizontal, inclined and vertical
screw conveyors. Several measurement techniques including theoretical models and DEM have been
utilized to study the screw conveyors performance. However, each of these techniques is limited in
its application. Difficulties in representing vortex motion and interactions among conveying grains
and between the particles and screw rotating flight have so far limited the success of advanced
modeling. Further work is needed to be conducted on screw augers performance to understand and
improve the agricultural grains and bulk materials handling process.

Keywords: Screw conveyor, Review, Performance, Handling

1. INTRODUCTION

Screw conveyors are very effective conveying devices for free flowing or relatively free flowing bulk solids, giving
good throughput control and providing environmentally clean solutions to process handling problems because of
their simple structure, high efficiency, low cost and maintenance requirements.

A helical screw rotating within a stationary cylindrical casing is widely use for both conveying and compacting a
variety of materials, both granular and free‐flowing or long and fibrous. Today, grain augers vary in size from 7.5 to
40 cm in diameter and from less than 1 m to more than 30 m in length. They are available as independent mobile
items or as a part of other grain handling systems such as harvesters, field bins, dryers, storage or silo systems, and
feed mixing and distribution systems [1]. Nowadays, screw augers are widely being used in harvesting and post‐
harvesting equipments. For example, in a grain combine, augers are used to move cut crop on the platform to the
feeder housing, clean grain from the bottom of the cleaning shoe to the grain tank, and to unload the grain tank
onto a wagon or a truck. Augers are also used at grain elevators and farmsteads to load grain storage bins and on
feedlots for feed distribution [2].

To assist in the effective utilization of helical auger conveyors in agricultural applications, we have recently carried
out a comprehensive review of published results on screw augers performance evaluation. This paper deals with
screw conveying of granular particles, mainly involving agricultural grains (e.g., corn, wheat, oats, and barley).
Screw conveying, in which particles are transported by auger rotation in vertical, horizontal and inclined conveying
systems, has found wide agricultural applications. In general, conveying takes place in horizontal or inclined spouts
and casings. In this paper, both experimental and modeling efforts are reviewed, related to screw conveyor
parameters, e.g., auger dimension, screw rotational speed, conveyor intake length, conveying angle; and the

© authors Journal of Scientific Review 55

H. Zareiforoush et al. J. Sci. Rev., Vol. 2, Issue 1, 55‐63 (2010)

conveying materials characteristics such as size, shape, coefficient of friction, bulk density and etc., leading to
recommendations for needed future works.

2. SCREW CONVEYOR METHODS AND EQUIPMENT

The screw conveyor consists of a shaft that carries helicoids flightings on its outer surface. These flightings are
enclosed either in a trough for horizontal augers or in a tube for elevating augers. The tube or the trough is held
stationary while the rotation of the flightings causes the material to move longitudinally. Figure 1 shows the
essential components of a screw conveyor. At the inlet side, the auger flightings extend beyond the tube.
Generally, a hopper is provided to hold the material while it is conveyed into the tube. Augers can be permanently
installed in a machine, or at a site, or they can be portable. The augers are driven either at the intake side or the
discharge side. There are some center‐drive augers but they are not common in agricultural applications [2].

Figure 1. A schematic diagram of a screw conveyor.

The auger length is defined as the length of the tube assembly including any intake but not including the intake
hopper and/or the head drive. The intake length is the visible flighting at the intake of the auger [3]. The intake
shall be guarded or otherwise designed to provide a deterrent from accidental contact with the rotating flighting
[4]. The outside diameter of the tube is referred to as the auger size. A standard pitch auger is the one whose pitch
is approximately equal to the outside diameter of the helicoidal flighting. Generally, the pitch is not less than 0.9
and not more than 1.5 times the outside diameter [5]. Standard pitch augers are used for horizontal and up to 20°
inclination angles. For inclination angles greater than 20°, half‐standard pitch screws are used. Double‐ and triple‐
flight, variable‐pitch, and stepped‐diameter screws are available for moving difficult materials and controlling feed
rates [2].

3. THEORETICAL METHOD AND REVIEW

3.1 SCREW CONVEYORS THEORETICAL FORMULA

The theoretical volumetric capacity of a screw auger is expressed as:

π
Qt =
4
(D 2
sf )
− Dss2 l p n , (1)

where,
Qt = theoretical volumetric capacity, m3 s‐1
dsf = screw flighting diameter, m
dss = screw shaft diameter, m
lp = pitch length, m
n = screw rotational speed, rev s‐1

© authors Journal of Scientific Review 56

H. Zareiforoush et al. J. Sci. Rev., Vol. 2, Issue 1, 55‐63 (2010)

In reality the actual capacity of an auger is considerably less than the theoretical capacity. This results in loss of
volumetric efficiency. The volumetric efficiency is defined as:
Qa
ηv = , (2)
Qt

where,
ηv = volumetric efficiency
Qa = actual volumetric capacity, m3 s‐1

Generally, the throughput rate in terms of mass (or weight) per unit of time, for example t h‐1 or kg min‐1, is
specified. The volumetric capacity is obtained by dividing the throughput rate by the bulk density of the material.
The power requirement of an auger is expressed by the specific power, defined as:

P/L
Ps = , (3)
Qa ρ b
where,
Ps = specific power, W s kg‐1 m‐1
P = power requirement, W
L = screw length, m
ρb = material bulk density, kg m‐3

Thus, the specific power is the power required to convey a unit mass throughput rate per unit auger length. Table I
shows a list of variables that are pertinent to the problem. These variables can be combined into ratios or
dimensionless groups called the pi‐terms using Buckingham’s theorem. The following equation includes the
dimensionless terms:
d t d sf d ss li l
π1 = f ( , , , ,n p , f (θ ), μ1 , μ 2 ) , (4)
d p lp lp lp g

where,

Qa P/L
π1 = or . (5)
π
4
(D 2
sf )
− Dss2 l p n
Qa ρ b g

The first term in the right hand side of Eq. 5 is the ratio of the actual volumetric throughput rate to the theoretical
volume swept by the screw per unit of time. This has been regarded as the volumetric efficiency of the screw
conveyor. The second term in the right hand side of the above equation is the power required per unit length per
unit mass flow rate of the material being conveyed. It has been defined as the specific power or the power
efficiency of the conveyor. The conveyor length does not affect the volumetric efficiency.

The dimensionless terms of Eq. 4 were used to develop prediction equations using experimental data. Published
data on the performance of auger conveyors conveying wheat, oats, and shelled corn were used to develop the
performance equations. These equations may be used to estimate conveyor performance for similar materials.

−0.44
⎛ lp ⎞
0.31
⎛ li ⎞
π 2
Qa
= (4.332 × 10 )⎜ 2π n
⎜
⎟
⎟
−4 ⎜
⎜l
⎟
⎟
( f1 (θ ))1.35 μ1−4.59 μ 2−3.72 , (6)

4
(
Dsf − Dss l p n
2
) ⎝ g ⎠ ⎝ p ⎠

0.14 −10.12
⎛ lp ⎞
0.11
⎛ d sf ⎞ ⎛ li ⎞
P/L
= 3.54⎜ 2π n
⎜
⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜ l
⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜l
⎟
⎟
( f 2 (θ )) μ 2.05 , (7)
Qa ρ b g ⎝ g ⎠ ⎝ p ⎠ ⎝ p ⎠
© authors Journal of Scientific Review 57
H. Zareiforoush et al. J. Sci. Rev., Vol. 2, Issue 1, 55‐63 (2010)

where, f1(θ) = 1 + cos2θ; f2(θ) = 6.94 (1.3 – cos2θ)

θ = conveyor angle as measured from the horizontal, degree

0.414 >μ1> 0.374; 0.554 >μ2> 0.466

Table I. List of variables affecting screw conveyor performance.

Symbol Variable Units

3 ‐1
Qa actual volumetric capacity m s

P power requirement W

dt tube inside diameter m

dsf screw outside diameter m

dss screw shaft diameter m

L screw length m

lp screw pitch length m

li exposed screw intake length m

‐1
n angular speed rev s

θ angle of conveyor inclination degree

‐3
ρb material bulk density Kg m

μ1 material‐metal friction ‐

μ2 material‐material friction ‐

‐2
g acceleration of gravity ms

All of the relations and equations offered in the current section have been suggested by Srivastava et al. [2].

3.2 SCREW CONVEYOR PERFORMANCE

The performance of a screw conveyor, as characterized by its capacity, volumetric efficiency, and power
requirements, is affected by the conveyor geometry and size, the properties of the material being conveyed, and
the conveyor operating parameters such as the screw speed and the angle of inclination. The screw conveyors
performance could be also specified considering the extent of grains damage when handling by the helical
flighting.

4. RESEARCH BACKGROUND‐LITERATURE REVIEW

Regan and Henderson [6] evaluated the screw augers performance at five levels of screw speeds, namely, 150,
200, 300, 450 and 600 rpm; and five levels of conveying angle of 0, 21.5, 39.25, 54.75, 69.5 and 84.75 degree. They
reported that an increase in screw speed results in an increase in the conveyor required power. Increasing the
angle of inclination caused the power to increase initially, but a decrease followed beyond a certain angle. They
suggested that this trend could be due to the decline in the volumetric efficiency. They indicated that the
conveying capacity decreases as the angle of inclination increases. They showed that there is a limiting value of
speed beyond which the capacity does not increase. The limiting value of speed was independent of the angle of
inclination. They suggested that there may be two factors responsible for this behavior: (1) the maximum possible
rate of grain flow through an orifice, and (2) the centrifugal force due to the rotation of the grain mass. The
© authors Journal of Scientific Review 58
H. Zareiforoush et al. J. Sci. Rev., Vol. 2, Issue 1, 55‐63 (2010)

reduction in the capacity approximately followed the cosine function with two exceptions: (1) the capacity at
higher speed was well below the cosine function, and (2) the capacity at 90° angle was about 30 % of the
horizontal capacity. They suggested that this may be due to the restriction to grain flow into the intake of the
conveyor at higher speeds and the fact that grain flows from a vertical orifice at one‐third the rate from a
comparable horizontal orifice. Herum [7] investigated the performance of auger conveyors for farm feed materials
at restricted delivery rates. His tests substantiated field observations that at less than capacity less power would be
required than for capacity of an auger conveyor. He indicated that the relationship between delivery rate and
power was generally linear. He also reported that if the desired delivery rate could be obtained at a number of
different auger speeds, selection of the lowest auger speed results in the least power requirement. An exception
to this generalization was noted as the conveyor reached its maximum capacity at any specific speed. At that point
small increases in delivery rate lead to an exceptionally large increase in power requirements. He concluded that at
conveyor inclinations of approximately 30° or less from horizontal with a given feed material and speed, the
relationship between power and rate of delivery was usually linear throughout the range tested. He reported this
result implied that a particle of feed material moves steadily through the conveyor from intake to discharge as a
function of auger speed only. He observed that at conveyor inclinations of approximately 45 or greater (depending
upon speed and feed material), a full‐pitch screw conveyor was entirely filled at all delivery rates above zero. Also,
if initially full, the conveyor would remain full even when the input rate was zero. Konig and Riemann [8] examined
the influence of inlet screw diameter on screw conveyor capacity and reported a nearly linear increase in capacity
with increased inlet screw diameter up to a maximum point. After reaching to the point, capacity decreased.
However, power required continued to increase with inlet‐screw diameter after the optimum diameter for
capacity was reached. Stevens [9] tested the performance of several auger conveyors. He indicated that less than
50 % of the power was used in moving grain along the tube. Some of the extra power required must be consumed
at the intake hopper, where considerable circulation of grain was observed. Rehkugler and Boyd [10] proposed the
application of dimensional analysis as a tool to develop a comprehensive prediction model for screw conveyor
performance. O’Callaghan [11] studied the influence of intake length on power requirements for vertical screw
conveyors operating at different speeds. Bouse et al. [12] analyzed damage to castor beans in screw conveyors.
They found that increasing rotational speed caused greater damage, and that clearance between conveyor casing
and screw flight was important in reducing the amount of seed damaged by the screw conveyor. Burkhardt [13]
tested the effects of pitch (distance between adjacent screw flighting), radial clearance, hopper exposure and
hopper level on the performance of screw feeders. Peart et al. [14] developed a performance‐test procedure for
screw conveyors which characterizes capacity, volumetric efficiency and power requirement. Bates [15] provided
detailed analysis of mechanics and entrained patterns of screw feeders, especially those combined with hoppers.
Carleton et al. [16] discussed the performance of screw conveyors and screw feeders based on experiments on the
effects of screw geometry, speed, fill level and material properties. Brusewitz and Persson [17] reported that the
screw clearance affects the volumetric efficiency. They indicated that the diametrical clearances up to 5 to 7 %
have little effect on the volumetric efficiency, but a drop in efficiency of 0.7 % per 1 % increase in clearance can be
expected. McFate and George [18] investigated the power‐capacity relationships of nominal 20 cm screw
conveyors when handling shelled corn. They reported higher volumetric efficiencies and power requirements with
larger diameter conveyors. Sands and Hall [19] studied shelled corn damage during transport in a screw conveyor.
They found that the conveyor caused a small amount of damage to dry corn when operated at full capacity, but
the level of damage increased greatly when the conveyor was operated at 1/4 capacity. If corn had been dried at a
high temperature, the level of damage was higher. As screw speed increased, the level of damage increased.
Inclination angle had little effect on the amount of damage to shelled corn in a screw conveyor. They reported that
damage to ambient‐air dried corn was 1.2 % and high‐temperature dried corn was 2.5 % when grain (13 %
moisture) was conveyed through a 30 m long, 15 cm diameter screw conveyor operated at 50° incline angle and
550 rpm. Rademacher [20] developed a theory based on a physical model to describe the behavior of non‐cohesive
granular material inside a vertical screw conveyor. By use of this theory, relationships were derived between
dimensionless numbers for capacity, power consumption and efficiency. These relationships were compared with
the results of experiments carried out with two models of vertical screw conveyors, one of 50.8 mm and the other
of 162.0 mm diameter. He reported that the agreement between the calculated and the measured values of
capacity and power consumption was within 5 and 9 % respectively. He also developed two other simpler theories,
one based on a simplified physical model that had been offered by Rademacher [21]; and the other on the
conveying of a single granule that had been offered by Rademacher [22]. He reported that the simpler theories did
not agree with the experiment as well as the one developed in his newer dissertation did, the theory of the single
granule producing the greatest discrepancies. With the latter theory, the capacity could be reasonably well
approximated when the ‘degree of fullness’ was ≤ 60 %. The influence of the inlet section on the performance of

© authors Journal of Scientific Review 59

H. Zareiforoush et al. J. Sci. Rev., Vol. 2, Issue 1, 55‐63 (2010)

the screw conveyor was also discussed by Rademacher [20]. It was found that the capacity of the conveying
section was in most cases limited by the inlet and not by the conveying section itself. Bloome et al. [23] indicated
that capacity of a screw conveyor is affected by its diameter, intake length, angle of elevation, rotational speed,
and moisture content of grain. They reported that the conveying capacity for a 3 m long screw conveyor with a
screw diameter of 15 cm and intake length of 30 cm in handling corn at 14.5 % moisture increased from 850 to
1160 bu h‐1, as the rotational speed of the conveyor increased from 400 to 600 rpm, at the conveying angle of 45°.
They indicated that power requirements increase with angle of elevation to 45°, and then decrease as the angle
goes to 90° and that as angle of elevation increases from 0° to 90°, conveyor capacity decreases. They reported
that the power requirements for the evaluated conveyor was 656 W at the rotational speed of 400 rpm and it was
954 W at a speed of 600 rpm, when the conveyor was operated at 45° inclination angle. Rautenbach and
Schumacher [24] derived a set of parameters by dimensional analysis to calculate the power consumption and
transport capacity and compared two geometrically similar screws. Zhong and O’Callaghan [25] carried out an
experimental investigation to confirm the influence of the shape of the feed opening to an enclosed horizontal
screw conveyor on its performance. In their research, a helical screw with 380 mm overall length, 70 mm outside
diameter, pitch of 70 mm and root diameter of 20 mm was set up horizontally in a tube of 72 mm internal
diameter. Their tests were carried out at two rotational speeds of 40 and 60 rpm and five values of the casing
orientation of 0, 28.5, 35.5,45 and 49° with three classes of materials, namely, free‐flowing, long fibrous and short
fibrous. They reported that although the shape of the feed opening is not critical when dealing with free‐flowing
materials, it had a very strong effect on performance when fibrous materials were fed into the conveyor. They
suggested that in order to avoid blockages in handling the materials, the inlet of the casing should form an acute
angle with the flighting to reduce the sliding of the materials along the casing edge and to encourage the cutting of
the materials between the moving flighting and the stationary edge of the casing. They reported that the included
angle was related to the helical angle of the flighting and also the angle of friction between the materials and the
flighting. Misra et al. [26] studied several conveying systems with respect to their effect on soybean seed quality.
They found that the steel‐flighting conveyor produced 4.3 % seed coat damage in two consecutive passes and the
rubber‐intake conveyor (a two‐foot rubber flighting intake section connected to the main steel flighting section)
produced 2.8 % damage. These results implied that at least 35 % of the total seed coat damaged occurred at the
inlet for steel‐flighting conveyors. Degirmencioglu and Srivastava [27] used dimensional analysis to develop
general prediction equations for the volumetric capacity and the specific power requirements of screw conveyors
conveying grains. The parameters used in the model were related to the conveyor geometry, properties of the
material being conveyed, and the conveyor operating conditions. Dimensionless groups were formed using
Buckingham’s pi‐theorem and prediction equations were developed using stepwise regression analysis. They
reported that the coefficient of determination was greater than 0.9 for each model. They indicated that the most
significant parameter affecting the volumetric efficiency and specific power was the angle of inclination of the
conveyor.An analysis of the vortex motion in vertical or steeply inclined screw conveyors was conducted by
Roberts [28]. He reported that a passive state of stress is generated within the bulk granular materials because of
the dominance of the centrifugal pressure due to the motion of the screw. He also indicated that the vortex
motion is characterized by the tangential component of the absolute grain velocity being substantially constant
with the radial position of a point on the blade. On this basis, an expression for the volumetric efficiency was
derived and the volumetric throughput was predicted. Chang and Steele [29] evaluated effects of flight type,
incline angle, intake length, and rotation speed on grain damage, power requirement, conveying capacity, and
conveying energy efficiency for the inlet section of a 15.2 cm screw conveyor with the screw diameter of 13.4 cm.
They investigated these performance characteristics for two corn lots. They reported that the conveying capacity
of the inlet section of a screw conveyor increased from 32.1 to 42.8 t h‐1 and 24.9 to 34 t h‐1, respectively, for two
corn lots evaluated, as the rotational speed of conveyor increased from 413 to 690 rpm. They also indicated that
with increasing the conveying inclination from 30 to 40°, the capacity decreases from 39.2 to 35.7 t h‐1 and 31.0 to
27.8 t h‐1, respectively, for the two corn lots tested. They reported that with increasing the screw rotational speed
from 413 to 690 rpm, the average power requirements for the inlet section of a 15.2 cm conveyor increased from
189 to 338 W and 209 to 350 W, respectively, for two corn lots evaluated. They concluded that the power
requirements for the inlet section tested were about 28 to 33 % of the total power requirements for the 3 m long
15.2 cm diameter screw conveyor reported by White et al. [30]. Burr et al. [31] designed and evaluated an auger
with linear tapered inside diameter having a minimum flighting height for uniform unloading particulate materials
from rectangular cross‐section containers. They reported that the auger constructed following this design provided
uniform unloading of particulate material from a container with a rectangular cross section, as evidenced by the
slope of the top surface of the material being maintained not significantly different from zero, until the surface
dropped to within 30 cm of the top of the auger flighting. Nicolai et al. [32] analyzed screw augers performance

© authors Journal of Scientific Review 60

H. Zareiforoush et al. J. Sci. Rev., Vol. 2, Issue 1, 55‐63 (2010)

specifications. They determined the capacity, volumetric efficiency, and power requirements for 20 cm and 25 cm
diameter conveyors with 15.2 m length operating in a speed range of 250 to 1100 rpm at inclination angles of 13,
20, and 30 degree when conveying corn. They indicated that the maximum conveyors throughput capacity for all
conditions evaluated occurred between 784 and 853 rpm. Volumetric efficiency decreased an average 3 % for
every 100 rpm increase in conveyor screw speed. Changing the conveyor inclination angle did not affect the
volumetric efficiency relative to the screw speed. Power requirements were affected by inclination angle up to 20
degree and not for inclination angles greater than 20 degree. They reported that for every 100 rpm increase in
screw speed for a 25 cm conveyor an increased power of 0.8 kW was needed for inclination angles greater than
20°. The power requirement was reduced to 0.5 kW for each 100 rpm increase at the transport position of 13°
inclination. Nicolai et al. [33] investigated the throughput and power requirements for large portable screw
conveyors with the diameters of 20, 25, 30 and 35 cm when operating at full capacity and rated speed. For the top‐
drive evaluations two tube diameters (30 and 35 cm) screw conveyors were evaluated and the bottom‐drive
evaluations consisted of three tube diameters (20, 25 and 30 cm). The conveyors were 15.5 m long. The swing‐
hoppers were mechanically driven and were charged with corn to assure that the short augers in the swing‐hopper
were submerged during the test. Each auger was evaluated at transport position (13 degree), 20 degree inclination
angle and 30 degree inclination angle. They indicated that the power requirements for the bottom‐drive swing
augers were over twice the requirements of a top drive. They showed that each auger required an additional 2.98
kW when the inclination angle was increased from transport position (13 degree) to 20 degree. An additional 3.73
to 4.47 kW was required when the inclination angle was increased from 20 to 30 degree. They reported that the
throughput for the bottom‐drive swing hoppers did not significantly change as the inclination angle increased, but
was reduced by 25 % for the top drive augers. For the same diameter augers the bottom‐drive swing hopper
augers had from 6 to 25 % more throughput than the top‐drive auger for inclination angles 13 to 30 degree
respectively. Moysey and Thompson [34] developed a new 3‐D model for solids conveying in a single screw
extruder using DEM. The model has been shown to be suitable tool for studying the local phenomenon of solids
flow within the screw channel. Athanasiov et al. [1] studied grain auger‐related injuries by examining the injury
data obtained from the worker’s compensation database in Queensland, Australia. Close to 60 % of 52 claimants
were male employees in the 20 to 34 age group. Fingers, hands, and arms were affected in 65 % of all cases, and
the auger flighting was involved in 60 % of claims. The severity of auger‐related injuries was reflected in the high
average cost of claims and number of working days lost, which were more than double the all‐industries values.
Injuries involving the auger flighting were three times more costly (in time and money) than the all‐industries
values. More claims were made during winter and towards the end of summer, with the majority of injuries
occurring in the animal industries. Most incidents occurred in the early or middle periods of a working shift. In
addition, two focus group meetings were held to gain a broader perspective of the grain auger injury picture in
Queensland, Australia. Focus group participants suggested that the operator’s state of mind and attitude to safety
are important, while the auger’s age, type, and shielding were cited as important risk factors. They suggested that
older augers are less likely to be adequately shielded, and mobile augers are most likely to be involved in injury
events. The information gained from their study was used to develop strategies to help farmers minimize injuries
associated with the use of grain augers. Maleki et al. [35] evaluated the seed distribution uniformity of a multi‐
flight auger as a grain drill metering device. They indicated that different auger characteristics have significant
effects on seed uniformity discharge from the feed units. They reported that the uniformity tended to increase
with increasing auger outer diameter, depth and width of grooves, number of auger flights and rotational speed.
Based on the results of the preliminary test, two extra augers were designed and developed. The first auger was 50
mm in diameter with seven flights and a 10 mm groove depth and width (A5), while the second one was 70 mm in
diameter with seven flights and a 14 mm groove depth and width (B5). The performance of these augers was
evaluated and compared to that of fluted‐roller feed device. The coefficient of uniformity was calculated at three
different travel speeds of 2.86, 4.78, and 6.61 km h‐1. They concluded that the coefficient of uniformity of augers
was mostly higher than those for the fluted‐roller metering device. The auger coefficient of uniformity was
significantly higher than those for the fluted‐roller meter at lower speeds. However, there was not any significant
difference at higher speeds between the feed units tested. The coefficient of uniformity, over all speeds, for the
fluted‐roller, auger A5 and auger B5 were 0.89, 0.91 and 0.92, respectively. Dai and Grace [36] developed a
theoretical model for the torque requirement of a screw feeder by considering the bulk solid mechanics of a
material element within a pocket. They reported that the required torque was proportional to the vertical stress
exerted on the hopper outlet by the bulk material in the hopper and depended strongly on the screw diameter.
Their predictions of the torque requirement for screw feeder were mostly in good agreement with experimental
measurements for several woody biomass materials. Gonzalez‐Valadez et al. [37] designed and evaluated a screw
type extruder to convey crop residues to animal feed. Their performance tests showed that most of the

© authors Journal of Scientific Review 61

 H. Zareiforoush et al. J. Sci. Rev., Vol. 2, Issue 1, 55‐63 (2010)

requirements of small farmers could be fulfilled by this extruder. The extruder capacity was between 440 and 970
kg h‐1 of air‐dry material and typically had a power consumption of up to 36 kW. Asghari et al. [38] studied the
effect of auger speed on discharge rate of bagasse. They showed that the discharge rate increased as the auger
speed was increased. They reported that this result was as expected, since when the auger speed was increased,
more bagasse was fed by auger flighting into the discharge gate.

CONCLUSION

Where screw augers performance has been studied in conveying and transport of agricultural materials, the efforts
have focused on agricultural grains (e.g., corn, wheat, oats), free‐flowing and fibrous materials. Performance
characteristics, e.g., screw rotational speed, transport angle and conveyor diameter, have been investigated, both
for inclined and horizontal conveying. Most of the work has been experimental, with relatively little modeling work
reported. Some other researches have been conducted on screw augers to determine agricultural grains damage.
Several measurement techniques including theoretical models and DEM have been utilized to study the screw
conveyors performance. However, each of these techniques is limited in its application. Other advanced
measurement techniques which could be successful for screw conveyors evaluation such as artificial neural
networks and image processing techniques should be deployed in efforts to elucidate screw augers performance.
Modeling efforts have also been reported relevant to helical conveying of agricultural materials, including grains
and fibrous materials. Hence, more work is needed on screw augers performance to understand and improve the
handling process. Research in this area is difficult, but potentially rewarding to enable screw augers to be used
effectively in advanced agricultural materials handling and to determine optimum screw design for helical
conveying of agricultural materials.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Rice research institute of Iran (RRII) and university
of Urmia for conducting this work.

REFERENCES

1. A. Athanasiov, M. L. Gupta, and L. J. Fragar, Agricultural Safety and Health, Volume 12(1), Page 29, 2006.
2. A. K. Srivastava, C. E. Goering, R. P. Rohrbach, and D. R. Buckmaster, American Society of Agricultural and
Biological Engineers. Michigan, USA. Page 491, 2006.
3. ASABE Standards, ASAE S374 MAR1975, 2006.
4. ASABE Standards, ASAE S361.3 APR1990, 2006.
5. ASABE Standards, ANSI/ASAE EP389.2 JUN1993, 2006.
6. M. Regan, and A. Henderson, American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. Michigan, USA. Page
491, 1959.
7. F. L. Herum, University of Illinois library at Urbana‐Champaign agriculture, 1960.
8. A. Konig, and U. Riemann. NIAE Translation 90, Landtechnische Forschung, Volume 10(2), Page 45, 1960.
9. G. N. Stevens, Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, Volume 7(1), Page 47, 1962.
10. G. E. Rehkugler, and L. L. Boyd, Transactions of the ASAE, Volume 7(1), Page 98, 1962.
11. J. R. O’Callaghan, Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, Volume 7(4), Page 282, 1962.
12. L. F. Bouse, L. G. Schoenleber, and J. G. Porterfield, Transactions of the ASAE, Volume 7(2), Page 152, 1964.
13. G. J. Burkhardt, Transactions of the ASAE, Volume 10, Page 685, 1967.
14. R. M. Peart, B. A. McKenzie, and F. L. Herum, Transactions of the ASAE, Volume 10(5), Page 667, 1967.
15. L. Bates, Transactions of the ASME, Volume 91, Page 295, 1969.
16. A. Carleton, J. Miles, and F. Valentin, Transactions of the ASME, Volume 91, Page 329, 1969.
17. M. Brusewitz, and J. Persson, American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. Michigan, USA. Page
491, 1969.
18. K. L. McFate, and R. M. George, Transactions of the ASAE, Volume 14(1), Page 121, 1971.
19. L. D. Sands, and G. E. Hall, Transactions of the ASAE, Volume 14(3), Page 584, 1971.
20. F. J. C. Rademacher, Powder Technology, Volume 9, Page 71, 1974.
21. F. J. C. Rademacher, Technrsche Hogeschool, Twente, Enschede (Ned.), 1972.
22. F. J. C. Rademacher, De vertikale schroeftransporteur, Doctor’s Thesis, Twente University of Technology,
1972.
23. P. Bloome, S. Harp, and G. Brusewitz, OSU Extension Facts No. 1105. Stillwater, Okla.: Cooperative Extension
Service, Oklahoma State University, 1976.
24. R. Rautenbach, and W. Schumacher, Bulk Solids Handling, Volume 7, Page 675, 1987.

© authors Journal of Scientific Review 62

 H. Zareiforoush et al. J. Sci. Rev., Vol. 2, Issue 1, 55‐63 (2010)

25. Zh. Zhong, and J. R. O’Callaghan, Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, Volume 46, Page 125, 1990.
26. M. K. Misra, Y. Shyy, L. Baudet, and S. J. Marley, Applied Engineering in Agriculture, Volume 7(6), Page 736,
1991.
27. A. Degirmencioglu, and A. K. Srivastava, Transactions of the ASAE, Volume 39(5), Page 1757, 1996.
28. A. W. Roberts, Powder Technology, Volume 104, Page 56, 1999.
29. C. S. Chang, and J. L. Steele, Applied Engineering in Agriculture, Volume 13(5), Page 627, 1997.
30. G. M. White, L. A. Schaper, I. J. Ross, and G. W. Isaacs, Indiana Agricultural Experiments Station, Research
Bulletin No. 740. Lafayette, Purdue University, 1962.
31. M. S. Burr, M. F. Kocher, and D. D. Jones, Transactions of the ASAE, Volume 41(5), Page 1415, 1998.
32. R. Nicolai, J. Ollerich, and J. Kelley, ASAE/CSAE Annual International Meeting, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Paper
Number 046134, 2004.
33. R. Nicolai, A. Dittbenner, and S. Pasikanti, ASABE Annual International Meeting, Portland, Oregon, Paper
Number 066043, 2006.
34. P. A. Moysey, and M. R. Thompson, Powder Technology, Volume 153, Page 95, 2005.
35. M. R. Maleki, J. F. Jafari, M. H. Raufat, A. M. Mouazen, and J. D. Baerdemaeker, Biosystems Engineering,
Volume 94(4), Page 535, 2006.
36. J. Dai, and J. R. Grace, Powder Technology, Volume 186, Page 40, 2008.
37. M. Gonzalez‐Valadez, G. Munoz‐Hernandez, and R. Sanchez‐Lopez, Biosystems Engineering, Volume 100, Page
66, 2008.
38. A. Asghari, R. Alimardani, A. Akram, and H. Karparvar, American‐Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Scienme 3(5), Page 743, 2008.

* Corresponding author.

Publisher: Scientific Review Board

© authors Journal of Scientific Review 63

View publication stats