CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter centers on the product's presentation. It encompasses the

project and physical description, project development, resource management,

design computation, try-outs, and revisions, all of which are crucial in the study's

presentation.

Project Description

The project prototype “Tilanggit Processing Machine” is a machine that is

used to produce tilanggit. It is used as an automated gutting process that

involves gills and innards remover and cutting process for the fish to have an

equal weight on each side.

The overall dimensions of the prototype are 39 inches in length, 24 inches

in width, and 41 inches in height. The machine consists of SAE 304 Stainless

Steel for the frame. In Gill and Innards Remover, the prototype used a stepper

motor with 2 rods that would rotate continuously. For the cutting process, the

prototype used a straight portable grinder. For the gutting process, the prototype

used a 12V DC Motor. For the power transmission between the motor and

conveyor, a chain and sprocket with dimensions of 69 cm in length, and chains of

5 cm in width. For the power transmission between the motor and the pressure

washer, a v belt is used. For cleaning and removing the excess innards, the

prototype used a water tube with a high-pressure nozzle. For the transmission of

water in the water tube a pressure washer with a recirculation process,

furthermore, the prototype has a splitter with rods connected that will split the fish

and stay flattened, and 2 cabinet types with a mesh filter for the discharge of

innards and another cabinet type for water with a drainage using a gate valve.

Physical Description

The “Tilanggit Processing Machine” was a prototype designed to address

the problem of manual labor of tilanggit fish. The machines are equipped with

specialized mechanisms that automate the gutting process, eliminating the need

for manual labor. The process involves gills and innards removal, cutting

process, and cleaning the tilanggit to increase productivity, reduce production

costs, and enhance product quality by ensuring consistent gutting results.

The machine operates first by feeding into the gills and innards remover.

After going through the first process, the fish will be put into the conveyor through

the guide. The process inside the machine involves the cutting of the fish and at

the same time, passing through the sprinklers for the fish to be cleaned and the

remaining blood, innards, and other inedible parts of the fish.

The gutted tilanggit is now ready to be dried and sold to the market after

drying. The use of this machine will help many barangays to produce many dried

tilanggit, reducing labor and time, unlike manual gutting of a fish.

 Figure 5. Tilanggit Processing Machine

Project Name: Tilanggit Processing Machine

Dimensions: 39 in x 24 in x 41 in

Output: Gutted, Cutted, and Cleaned Tilanggit

Figure 6. Isometric View of the Tilanggit Processing Machine

 Figure 7. Side View of the Tilanggit Processing Machine

Figure 8. Top View of the Tilanggit Processing Machine with Components

Figure 9. Top View of the Actual Machine of the Tilanggit Processing Machine
with Components
Figure 10. Side View of the Actual Machine of the Tilanggit Processing Machine
with Components

Figure 11. Front View of the Actual Machine of the Tilanggit Processing Machine
with Components

Figure 8,9,10, and 11 shows the design of the prototype “Tilanggit

Processing Machine” from different views. About the figure above, the prototype

consists of Gills and Innards Remover, which has a dimension of 5 cm length

and 2 mm width per rod, in which the fish’s mouth was fed to the rods and let the

rotational movement of the 12V DC motor gut the fish before feeding into the

conveyor with the help of the guide, the conveyor has a measurement of 0.8 m

in length and has a width of 0.25 m, while the guide is measured at 2 cm in

height with a distance of 2 cm. For the fish to remain in its position, the guide will

help while moving into the conveyor going to the blade that will cut the fish into

two equal parts. The blade is powered by a straight portable grinder motor that

has 12,000 rpm, also the blade has a diameter of 38mm. After passing the blade,

the splitter and the flatting rod will help the fish to be flattened throughout the

process so that the sprinkler can focus on cleaning the stomach part of the fish

and help to clean and remove the remaining inedible parts of the fish. The

sprinkler is powered by the pressure washer under the basin. The pressure

washer will retain the pressure of the water coming out from the sprinkler. The

basin will catch the water and recirculate the water until the first process is

finished. After the whole process, the gutted, cut, and cleaned fish will be out

from the machine through the chute (12). The whole machine will only start if you

press the switch (4).

Block Diagram

The following diagram illustrates the significant factors that must be

considered during machine operation to achieve the objectives of the project and

create the intended output.

Figure 10. Block Diagram

Project Development

The researchers discovered that in the town of Los Banos, Laguna, there

was a project for producing dried tilanggit. Some workers do the process of

manual gutting having an average production rate of 45 fishers per hour. This

time-consuming manual gutting leads to the quitting of workers for the production

of dried tilanggit. In partnership with DOST, the researchers decided to design

and produce a prototype that will help the municipality of Los Banos. A machine

that will automate the process of gutting a fish.

Design Calculation

This section describes the calculations and design work that was used in

creating the prototype. Various parameters are taken into consideration by the

researchers before starting the computation.

Solving for the Pressure Washer Specifications

Based on the study of de Oliveira, F. A. (2017), “Effect of high pressure on

fish meat quality”, the amount of water pressure to break the fish meat ranges

from 200 MPa to 300 MPa.

SUCTION DISCHARGE
PRESSURE
WASHER

AC MOTOR

Figure 11. Schematic Diagram of AC Motor Connected to the Pressure Washer

Solving for the Water Pressure (P)

Pressure=P w gh

Where:

kg
Pw = density of water; 1000 3
m
 m
g = gravitational force; 9.81 2
s

h = head; 1.5 m, height that the water will travel

Pressure=1000
kg
m
3 ( m
)
9.81 2 ( 1.5 m ) Pressure=14,715 Pa
s

Solving for the Velocity (V)

√
2 x 14,715 Pa
Velocity=
√ 2 x P Velocity=
PW 1000 3
m
kg

m
Velocity=5.43
s

Solving for the Area of the Nozzle (A)

Since the smallest nozzle orifice size is 2mm for water pressure up to 500 psi.,

14.715 kpa = 0.00213423031 psi.

()
2 2
D Area=π 2
Area=π Area=3.14 mm=0.0031 m
2 2
Solving for the Force of the Pressure Washer (F)

Force=P x A Force=14,715 Pa x 0.0031Force=45.62 N

Solving for the Capacity (Q)

( )
3
m m
Capacity= A x V Capacity=0.0031 m 5.43 Capacity=0.017
s s

Solving for the Motor Power Required ( pm ¿

m
Power=F x V Power=45.62 N x 5.43 Power=247.72 W =0.248 kW
s

Use 1HP motor

Figure 12. 1HP Single Phase Motor

Solving for the Torque of Motor (T)

1HP motor specification:

N 1=1800 rpm

D1=3∈. – From Table 17.3 (Faires)

D2=12∈.
 Based on the study of Leynes, J. et al., entitled “Mounting Machine for

Engine Transmission”, 12” is the diameter of the pulley of the pump with a 1HP

motor.

HP x 5252 1 x 5252
Torque= Torque= Torque=2.92 N−m
N1 1800

Solving for V-Belt

D1=3 D2=12

Figure 13. Schematic Diagram of the Belt Drive of the Motor and Pressure
Washer

Solving for N 2, using Speed Ratio (SR)

D2 12
Speed Ratio= Speed Ratio= Speed Ratio=4
D1 3

N1 1800
N 2= N 2= N 2=450 rpm
SR 4

Solving for the center – to – center distance between the two pulleys from

Design of Machine Elements by Faires (2014)

 D1 + D2 3+ 12
Center= + D1Center= +3Center=10.5∈.
2 2

Solving the belt speed (V m ¿ from Design of Machine Elements by Faires (2014)

3
V m =π D1 N 1V m =π 1800V m =1413.72 fpm
12

Solving for the belt length (L) from Design of Machine Elements by Faires

(2014)

L=2 C+ 1.57 ( D2+ D1 ) +¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ L=2 ( 10.5 ) +1.57 ( 12+3 ) +¿ ¿ ¿ L=49.90∈.

Angle of Contact of Small Pulley

θd =π−2 sin ( D−d

2C )

Where:

D = Diameter of Large Pulley

θ D= Angle of Contact of Large Pulley Diameter

d = Diameter of Small Pulley

θd = Angle of Contact of Small Pulley Diameter

C = Length between the pulley centers.

θd =180−2sin
( 212−3
( 10.5 ) )
 θd =179.9891 °

Angle of Contact of Small Pulley

θd =π +2 sin ( D−d
2C )

Where:

D = Diameter of Large Pulley

θ D= Angle of Contact of Large Pulley Diameter

d = Diameter of Small Pulley

θd = Angle of Contact of Small Pulley Diameter

C = Length between the pulley centers.

θd =180+2 sin
( 2(10.5)
12−3
)
θd =180.02109 °
 Figure 14. Schematic Diagram of Belt and Pulley

Solving for the Rated HP

Use Type A Belt Section 51

For the small diameter correction factor, from Table 17.4

D2 12
𝐾𝑑 = 1.14 ⇒ = =4
D1 3

From Table 17.3, 𝑎 = 2.684, 𝑏 = 5.326, 𝑒 = 0.0136

[( ) ( )]( )
0.09 2
103 b ( Vm ) Vm
Rated Hp= a − −e 6 3
Vm K d ( D 1) 10 10

[ ( ) ( )](
0.09 2
Rated Hp= 2.684
103
1413.7
−
5.326
1.14 ( 3 )
−0.0136
( 1413.7 )
106
1413.7
1 03 )
Hp
Rated Hp=1.44
Belt

Determining the Design HP From Table 17.7 (Faires), Conveyor, AC Single

Phase Motor

Nsf =1.4−0.2 ( 8 hrs runningtime ) Nsf =1.2 Design HP=Nsf ( HP ) Design HP=1.2 ( 1 )

Design HP=1.2
Determining Adjusted HP

( D2 + D1 ) K = ( 4.5−3 ) K =0.22
K θ= θ θ
C 6.75

From Table 17.5, K θ=0.87

From Table 17.6, Using Belt A51, K L=0.94

Adjusted HP=K θ K L ( rated hp ) Adjusted HP=0.78 ( 0.81 ) ( 1.38 ) Adjusted HP=1.17 HP

Determination of Number of Belts

Design HP 1.2
Number of Belts= Number of Belts= Number of Belt=1.02 Belt
Adjusted HP 1.17

Use 1 Belt

Determination of Width and Thickness of Belt from Table 17.14 (Faires)

N 1=1800 rpm

Design HP=1.2 HP

1
b= ∈.
2

5
t= ∈.
16

Solving for the Shaft Design

Solving for the Arc of Contact

For Smaller Pulley

(D 2−D1)
θ s=π−
C

Where:

θ s = Arc of Contact (Radius)

D2 = Diameter of Larger Pulley, 12 in.

D1 = Diameter of Smaller Pulley, 3 in.

C = Center Distance of Pulley, 10.5 in.

(12−3)
θ s=π−
10.5

θ s=2.28 rad

Solving for the Tension Ratio of Belts

θf
F 1=F2 e

Where:
F 1 = Force on the high-tension side

F 2 = Force on the low-tension side

f = Friction factor, 0.3 (Rubber Belt)

(2.28)(0.3 )
F 1=F2 e

F 1=2.28 F2 (Eq. 1)

Solving For the Transmitted Tangential Force

63,000 HP 2
F t= ( )Where:
N2 D2

Design HP = 1.2

63,000 ( 1.2 ) 2
F t= ( )
450 12

63,000 ( 1.2 ) 2
F t= ( )
45 12

F t=28 lb .

Determination of Tension of Belt

F t=F 1−F 2

¿ F 1−F2 (Eq. 2)

28=2.28 F 2−F 2
 F 2=2.28−28

F 2=25.72lb .

Cutting Components

AC MOTOR

Figure 15. Schematic Diagram of the AC Motor connected to the blade/cutter

Solving for the Torque on the shaft

T =( F ) ( D2 )
Where:

F = Force; 332.45N

D = Diameter of the blade, based on the average size of the 2 months old tilapia

while the proponents are doing the trials. ; 1.5in = 0.038m

According to Azarmdel et al. (2021), in their study entitled, Design and

Simulation of a Vision-Based Automatic Trout Fish- Processing Robot, the

maximum force to cut a meat fish is 332.45 N.

T =( 332.45 ) ( 0.038
2 )
T =6.32 N−m

Solving for the Motor HP

 T x rpm
Motor HP=
2π

Where:

According to the study of Ashwinkumar et al. (2021), “Development and

Study of Universal Fish Cutting Apparatus”, the speed of the blade required to

cut the fish smoothly is in the range of 350-550 rpm, considering the range of the

speed, use 400 rpm

T = Torque; 6.32 N - m

Rpm = 400 rpm

6.32 ( 400 )
Motor HP= Motor HP=402 W =0.402kW Use 0.5 HP motor
2π

Solving for Sprocket and Chain

Figure 16. Schematic Diagram for Sprocket and Chain

Solving for Sprocket and Chain
Note: The sprockets used in rollers, counter shafts, and gear box have the same
number of teeth and pitches.
From Table 9.2 (Machine Design 2: Roller Chain Sizes by Engr. J. Francisco)
Number of teeth=16
5
Use RC ¿ 50 , Pitch= inch
8
Solving for the Speed Ratio
T 1=T 2 =T 3 =T 4 =T 5=16 teeth

SR=1 :1
Solving for the Pitch Diameter
P
D=
180 °
sin( )
T
Where:
D = Pitch Diameter
P = Pitch
T = Number of Teeth
5
8
D=
180 °
sin sin( )
16
D=3.20 ∈¿ 82 mm
Solving for the Sprocket Center-to-Center Distance
D1
C=D2 +
2
Where,
C=Center ¿ Center Distance
D1=D2 =Pitch Diameter
 3.20
C=3.20+
2
4.8 inches
C=
0.5
C=9.6 ≈ 10 Pitches
Solving for the Length of Chain in Pitches
T 2T =T 1 × Number of sprocket mounted onthe shaft

Where:
T 2T =Total Number of teeth mounted onthe shaft

T 1=Number of teeth mounted on themotor

L=Length of Chain ∈Pitches

C=Sprocket Center ¿ Center Distance
T 2T =16 × 4

T 2T =64

T 2 T +T 1 (T 2 T −T 1)2
L=2 C+ +
2 40 (C)
2
64+16 (64−16)
L=2(10)+ +
2 40(10)
L=65.76 ≈ 66 pitches

Solving for the Number of Links

L
Number of Links=
P
Where,
L=Length of Chain ∈Pitches
P=Pitch
66
Number of Links=
5
8
Number of Links=106
Solving for the Pitch of Chain
C
PC =
L
Where:
PC = Pitch of Chain

C = Center Distance
L = Number of pitches
10
PC =
66
PC =0.152 pitches

Solving for Chain Length (Gear Box to Shaft)

Length of Chain between Counter Shaft A and Speed Reducer
2
T 1 +T 2 ( T 2−T 1 )
Lc =2 c + +
2 40C
Where:
C = Center Distance = 210 mm (based on the empirical distance with maximum
adjustment on the roller)
T 1 = Number of teeth of Roller A = 16 teeth

T 2 = Number of teeth of Roller B = 16 teeth

2
T +T ( T 2−T 1 )
Lc =2 C+ 1 2 +
2 40 C
2
16+16 ( 16−16 )
Lc =2(210)+ +
2 40(210)
Lc =436 mm=17.1654 ∈.

Solving for Chain and Sprocket (Gear Box to Shaft)

P
D 1=
Pitch Diameter = 180
sin( )
T1

Outside Diameter = DO =P ¿ ] 1

Where:
D1 = Pitch Diameter

P = Pitch = 0.5
T 1 = Number of teeth = 16

DO = Outside Diameter
1

0.5
D 1=
180
sin( )
16
D1=2.5629∈.

DO =0.5 ¿
1

DO =2.8137∈.
1

Solving for the Linear Speed of the Conveyor

For the Circumference of the Sprocket
C=π x Pd

Where,
C = Circumference
Pd = Pitch Diameter

C=π x 65 mm C=204.20 mm

Solving for the Linear Speed of the Conveyor

For the Circumference of the Sprocket
C=π x Pd

Where,
C = Circumference
Pd = Pitch Diameter

C=π x 82 mm C=257.61 mm
mm
Hence, the Linear Speed = 257.61
min
Solving for the Conveyor Speed
Linear Speed
Rpm=
πxD
Where,
Rpm = Conveyor Speed
D = Pitch Diameter
m
0.25761
min
Rpm=
π x 0.065 m
Rpm=1.26 rpm
Solving for the Roller Diameter
Linear Speed x 60
Dr =
2 x π x Rpm
m
0.20420
min
Dr =
2 x π x 1.26 rpm
Dr =0.03 m

Solving for the Force of the Conveyor

F=ma
Where,
F = Force
M = load to be conveyed, the maximum mass of the 2-month-old tilapia is 45g
and the capacity of the conveyor considering the average length of the raw
material which is 8cm, and the length of the conveyor which is 64 pitches = 81.28
cm. The mass of that will be conveyed is 495g = 0.495 kg
m
A = Acceleration due to gravity, 9.81 2
s
F=0.495 x 9.81 F=4.9 N −m
Solving for the Torque
T =F x r

Where
T = torque
F = Force
pd
R=
2
T =4.9 x 0.0325 T =0.16 N−m
Solving for the motor power
P=T x ω
Where,
P = Power
T = Torque
ω = Angular Velocity

For the Angular Velocity

2 π x rpm 2 π x 1.26
ω= ω= ω=0.13 rps
60 60
P=0.16 x 0.13
P=0.0208W

Solving for the Motor of the Gills and Innards Remover

DC MOTOR

Figure 17. Schematic Diagram of the DC motor and the Rods for Gills and
Innards Remover

Solving for the Speed

 Rev
N=Desired Output (6 )
Fish

Where:

Based on the proponent’s desired output of the machine, 200 tilanggit per

hour is produced, and the speed is 6 revolutions per tilanggit.

Tilanggit Rev
N=200 (6 )
Hour Tilanggit

Rev 1 Hour
N=1200 ×
Hour 60 Minutes

N=20 rpm

Solving for the Power of Motor

2 πTN
P=
60

Where:

According to Azarmdel et al. (2021), in their study entitled, Design and

Simulation of a Vision-Based Automatic Trout Fish- Processing Robot, the

maximum required torque for the gutting stepper motor was calculated as 0.69 N-

m in the tested processing capacities.

 P=Power

T =Torque

N=Speed

2 π (0.69)(20)
P=
60

P=1.45 Watts=0.00145 kW

Try-outs and Revisions

Several try-outs and revisions were made to the machine by the

proponents to achieve efficient and consistent operation. For each trial, five

tilanggit were inserted into the gills and innard remover. The five tilanggit were
then placed onto the conveyor while being supported by the guide. Then, the

tilanggit were cut with the blade and cleaned by the sprinkler. After several trials,

the researchers observed that despite the proper and careful placement of

tilanggit, there were some tilanggit not fully processed. The researchers

determined that the anatomy of the tilanggit was a key factor in the efficiency of

the machine.

Table 8. Trials, Findings, and Solution

TRIAL FINDING SOLUTION

The 2-month-old tilapia always

Tolerance should be considered
varies in size. Based on the
for the measurements of the
measurements that the
tilanggit. For the length, the
proponents made during the
1 tolerance would be ± 1 cm. For
trials, the average size of the
the width and height, a tolerance
tilanggit is 8 cm x 4 cm x 2 cm, in
of ± 0.2 cm would be considered.
terms of L x H x W, respectively.

On the 4th revolution of the gills

Pull out the tilanggit from the gills
and innards remover, the
and innards remover until its 6th
2 tilanggit's gills and innards are
revolution.
thoroughly removed.

The initial weight of the tilanggit

Measure both the weight of the
is not always equal to the weight
edible parts and the innards and
of the tilanggit when the edible
3 gills removed after the process.
parts and innards are removed.

Based on the measurements of

the tilanggit, the width is the Measure the tilanggit and
4 fundamental factor that will affect consider a tolerance of ± 0.2 cm.
the cutting efficiency.

Ensure that the tilanggit is put in

The production rate may vary
the gills and innards remover, as
depending on how the operator
5 it is the first step of the whole
carries out the process.
process.

The bottom-most compartment Install a hose from the bottom-

6 of the cabinet storage reaches most part of the cabinet to the
its capacity and overflows. basin storage, resulting in a
 recirculating system for the water.

The fluids of the tilanggit Close the cover top cover of the
7 splatters as it passes through the machine so the fluids of the
cutting blade. tilanggit won't splash the operator.

Properly place the tilanggit in the

There are instances where the
middle of the guide and ensure it
tail of the tilanggit is also cut
8 is supported by the small pusher
during the process.
of the conveyor.

There is an increased Align the drain of the machine

consumption of water throughout
the whole process, due to the
9
pressure washer operating
continuously to clean the
conveyor.
with the basin so that the water
will go to the basin and
recirculation of the water is
possible. Place the suction hose
in the basin.

The switches for the running Place labels that indicate Gills
components are confusing as and Innards Remover, Cutter,
10
they cannot be identified. Pressure Washer, and Conveyor.

Table 8 highlights the multiple trial findings that were taken into account

throughout machine testing of the same input of the product. For each

description and remark, appropriate machine revisions were implemented.

For trial 1, before and after the process, the proponents noticed that each

of the 5 tilanggit varies in size. As the measurement and anatomy of the fish are

inalterable, the proponents considered having measurement tolerances. In the

second trial, after inserting the tilanggit in the gills and innards remover within its

fourth revolution, the innards are not entirely taken off and removed. To solve

this, before pulling the tilanggit out, the remover should revolve at least six times.

Before starting each trial, the tilanggit is weighed and measured. The problem

found in the third trial is the initial weight of the tilanggit is not always equal to the

weight of the tilanggit after the innards are removed. The solution is to measure
both the initial and final weight of the tilanggit, instead of subtracting it as what

the proponents did in the first two trials.

In the fourth trial, the measure of the tilanggit is found as a factor that

affects the cutting efficiency. Measuring and considering a tolerance should solve

this finding. The way the operator executes the process affects the production

rate of the machine. To solve this finding in the fifth trial, the operator must

commit to the whole process, starting from putting the tilanggit in the innards

remover, followed by placing the tilanggit in the conveyor, making sure it is

supported properly by the guide. The proponents also noticed that the lowest

compartment of the cabinet overflowed with water after finishing the sixth trial.

Installing a hose from the bottom-most part of the cabinet connecting to the basin

storage should fix the issue.

In the seventh trial, during the cutting process, the operator was splattered

by the fluids of the tilanggit. During operation, the top cover of the machine

should always be closed to avoid further accidents and instances like this. There

were also situations in the eighth trial where the tail of the tilanggit was cut.

Before turning on the switch of the conveyor and blade, proper and supported

placement of the tilanggit in the conveyor and guide should be ensured.

After several trials, the researchers identified that there is excessive water

consumption. This was due to the pressure washer operating continuously. As

this was unavoidable, the solution to be made is to align the drain of the machine

with the basin so that the water will go to the basin and recirculation of the water
is possible. Place the suction hose in the basin. In the last trial, the markings of

the switches were smudged and unreadable. Instead of using a pen to mark

each switch, a proper label should be put.

Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data

The following results presented in the tables in this section are based on

the trials made by the researchers on the prototype machine. There are several

variables included in each corresponding table which was used to obtain the

highest possible efficiency of the prototype. These variables are the input and

output weight, lighter and heavier side of the fish, time, production rate, and

efficiency.

Table 9. Cutting Efficiency of Tilanggit Processing Machine for the Production of

Dried Tilanggit
Lighter Side (g) Heavier Side (g)
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
T1 12.8 15.3 13.4 13.5 13.3 12.9 15.4 15.2 14.6 16.2
T2 10.2 15.3 9.1 13.6 12.7 12.6 16.5 11.8 14.1 12.9
T3 11.1 10.8 14.4 14.6 14.8 12.4 11.9 15.9 15.3 16.1
T4 10.1 13.1 11.9 10.9 11.7 13.2 13.7 14.7 12.7 13.4
T5 15.8 14.9 15.3 14.1 11.9 15.8 15.6 17.2 14.2 12.2
T6 14.6 15.7 14.2 13 17.6 14.7 17.1 14.8 13.8 18.5
T7 13 18.2 17.2 10.8 14.2 14.3 19 17.3 11.2 15.3
T8 12.6 13.4 15.2 15.1 11.2 15.4 13.7 15.3 16.7 11.9
T9 12.9 10.4 16.3 14.6 16.8 14.9 11.6 17.9 14.7 17.6
T10 16 16.2 15.9 13.4 11.5 17.2 18 16.2 13.8 11.7

Table 10. Results of the Trial for the Cutting Efficiency

Cutting Efficiency (%)
Average Efficiency per trial (%)
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
T1 99.2 99.4 88.2 92.5 82.1 92.3
T2 81 92.7 77.1 96.5 98.5 89.1
T3 89.5 90.8 90.6 95.4 91.9 91.6
T4 76.5 95.6 81 85.8 87.3 85.2
T5 100 95.5 89 99.3 97.5 96.3
 T6 99.3 91.8 96 94.2 95.1 95.3
T7 90.9 95.8 99.4 96.4 92.8 95.1
T8 81.8 97.8 99.4 90.4 94.1 92.7
T9 86.6 90 91 99.3 95.5 92.4
T10 93 90 98.2 97.1 98.3 95.3
OVERALL AVERAGE CUTTING
92.5
EFFICIENCY (%)

To come up with the cutting efficiency of tilanggit processing machine, the

researchers conducted ten trials, having five tilanggit in each trial. The

researchers measure the weight, and length, height, and width of the tilanggit

before feeding it to the first process of the machine which is the Gills and Innards

Remover. After the tilanggit is done with the first process, it is then fed to the

conveyor in the middle of the guide for the cutting process to begin. After the

processes of cutting and cleaning the tilanggit, it will go down into the chute and

then into the container. After the whole process is done, both sides of the

processed tilanggit are then weighed again, the proponents used a digital

weighing scale to determine the weight of each side of the output. After

determining the weight of each side of the sample, the proponents list down the

data to a notebook to be transferred to an Excel file.

Repeating all the processes until the 5th sample is done. The cutting

efficiency would be determined by the ratio of the heavier side and the lighter

side of each fish. In cases where the values of both sides become closer, the

efficiency obtained is higher. In Table 10, T5F1 obtains the highest cutting

efficiency. There is no difference in the weight of each side for T5F1. However,

there are cases where the anatomy and the structure of the tilanggit considerably

affect the cutting efficiency. In the case of T4F1, the difference in weight of both
sides is 3.1 grams, resulting in an efficiency of only 76.5%. The proponents found

out that the structure, and anatomy of the fish affect the cutting efficiency of the

machine, because T4F1 has a curved structure, and the initial weight of the

sample is not even to begin with. While T5F1 has a straight structure, and the

sample has an evenly distributed weight in their body.

Table 11. Highest and Lowest Cutting Efficiency Sample

T4F1 (76.5%) T5F1 (100%)

Cutting Efficiency
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5

Figure 18. Line Graph for the Cutting Efficiency

Figure 18 shows the results of all the trials that were made by the

proponents. Having 5 sample fish for each trial, based on the data that was

gathered by the proponents, the cutting efficiency of the machine has a very high

efficiency. Out of 50 sample fish that was tested on the machine, there were only

4% of the sample is beyond the very high efficiency.

Table 12. Gut Removal Efficiency of Tilanggit Processing Machine for the
Production of Dried Tilanggit
Initial Weight (g) Output Weight (g)
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
T1 36.8 40.7 38.9 38.4 34.0 25.7 30.7 28.6 28.1 29.5
T2 34.2 41.0 27.0 34.8 36.9 22.8 31.8 20.9 27.7 25.6
T3 31.1 30.5 38.2 39.0 38.6 23.5 22.7 30.3 29.9 30.9
T4 32.0 33.7 34.6 32.0 31.5 23.3 26.8 26.6 23.6 25.1
T5 41.9 41.0 41.4 39.1 32.5 31.6 30.5 32.5 28.3 24.1
T6 35.9 40.4 35.8 33.0 44.7 29.3 32.8 29.0 26.8 36.1
T7 36.2 44.1 42.3 29.5 34.0 27.3 37.2 34.5 22.0 29.5
T8 36.8 34.7 41.8 39.6 31.8 28 27.1 30.5 31.8 23.1
T9 35.8 29.2 40.9 33.6 42.1 27.8 22.0 34.2 29.3 34.4
T10 41.7 42.9 41.2 35.2 29.9 33.2 34.2 32.1 27.2 23.2

Table 13. Results for the Gutting Efficiency

Gut Removal Efficiency (%) Average Efficiency (%)
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 PER TRIAL
T1 69.8 75.4 73.5 73.2 86.8 75.75
T2 66.7 77.6 77.4 79.6 69.4 74.12
T3 75.6 74.4 79.3 76.7 80.1 77.21
T4 72.8 79.5 76.9 73.8 79.7 76.53
T5 75.4 74.4 78.5 72.4 74.2 74.97
 T6 81.6 81.2 81 81.2 80.8 81.16
T7 75.4 84.4 81.6 74.6 86.8 80.53
T8 76.1 78.1 73.0 80.3 72.6 76.02
T9 77.7 75.3 83.6 87.2 81.7 81.11
T10 79.6 79.7 77.9 77.3 77.6 78.42
OVERALL AVERAGE GUT REMOVAL 77.58
EFFICIENCY (%)

To come up with the gut removal efficiency of tilanggit processing

machine, the researchers conducted ten trials, having five tilanggit in each trial.

The researchers measure the weight, and the length, height, and the width of the

tilanggit before feeding it to the first process of the machine which is the Gills and

Innards Remover. After the tilanggit is done with the first process, it is then fed to

the conveyor in the middle of the guide for the cutting process to begin. After the

processes of cutting and cleaning the tilanggit, it will go down into the chute and

then to the container. After the whole process is done, the processed fish is then

weighed again to get the output weight. The proponents used a digital weighing

scale to determine the weight of the output. After determining the weight, the

proponents list down the data to a notebook to be transferred to an excel file.

Repeating all the processes until the 5 th sample is done. The gut removal

efficiency would be determined by the ratio the output weight and the initial

weight of each fish. In cases where the values of both sides become closer, the

efficiency obtained is higher. In Table 13, T9F4 had the highest gut removal

efficiency of 87.2%, with a difference of 4.3 grams after being processed in the

machine. On the other hand, T2F1 resulted in 66.7% gut removal efficiency with

a weight difference of 11.4 grams. After the ten trials, the researchers perceived

that the composition and structure of the tilanggit had a notable effect on the
efficiency. To be specific, the weight of the innards and entrails of a tilanggit may

vary from fish to fish. Environmental conditions, genetic characteristics, and diet

may influence the internal composition of a tilanggit.

Table 14. Highest and Lowest Gut Removal Efficiecny Sample

T9F4 (87.2%) T2F1 (66.7%)

Gut Removal Efficiency

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 Figure 19. Line Graph for the Gut Removal Efficiency Efficiency

Figure 19 shows the results of all the trials that were made by the

proponents. Having 5 sample fish for each trial, based on the data that was

gathered by the proponents, the gut removal efficiency of the machine has a high

efficiency. Out of 50 sample fish that was tested on the machine, 72% of the

samples were determined to have a high efficiency, while the 28% of the

samples were considered in the very high efficiency.

Table 15. Processing TIme of Tilanggit Processing Machine

Cutting
and
Total
Time for Gills and Innards Total Cleaning
Trial Processing
Removal (seconds) (sec) Time for
Time (sec)
5 Fishes
(sec)
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F1 – F5 F1-F5 PER TRIAL
 T1 10.0 12.0 12.0 10.0 11.0 55 65 120
T2 9.0 11.0 11.0 10.0 10.0 51 62 113
T3 11.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 50 61 111
T4 10.0 10.0 11.0 11.0 10.0 52 63 115
T5 10.0 10.0 11.0 10.0 11.0 52 62 114
T6 11.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 10.0 50 61 111
T7 10.0 10.0 12.0 11.0 12.0 55 64 119
T8 12.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 10.0 55 65 120
T9 10.0 10.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 53 62 115
T10 9.0 10.0 11.0 10.0 10.0 50 60 110
AVE. 10.2 10.4 11 10.3 10.4 52.3 62.5

Table 16. Production Rate of Tilanggit Processing Machine

Total Time For Single
Production Rate
No. of Processing Operation of
Trial (Tilanggit/Single
Output Time The Machine
Operation)
(Seconds) (Seconds)
T1 5 Tilanggit 120 1200 50
T2 5 Tilanggit 113 1200 53.10
T3 5 Tilanggit 111 1200 54.05
T4 5 Tilanggit 115 1200 52.17
T5 5 Tilanggit 114 1200 52.63
T6 5 Tilanggit 111 1200 54.05
T7 5 Tilanggit 119 1200 50.42
T8 5 Tilanggit 120 1200 50
T9 5 Tilanggit 115 1200 52.17
T10 5 Tilanggit 110 1200 54.55
Average Production Rate 52.31

To come up with the production rate of tilanggit processing machine, the

researchers conducted ten trials, having five tilanggit in each trial. The

researchers measure the weight, and the length, height, and the width of the

tilanggit before feeding it to the first process of the machine which is the Gills and

Innards Remover. The proponents then measured the time for the fish to be

completely degut. It is done for all the samples. The average time for the gut

removal is 52.3 seconds. After the tilanggit is done with the first process, it is

then fed to the conveyor in the middle of the guide for the cutting process to

begin. The timer starts when the conveyor starts running. In this process, the
proponents measured the time after the fifth fish fell down the container at the

end of the machine. The average time for all the trials is 62.5 seconds.

Repeating all the processes until the last trial is done. The production rate

of the machine would be determined by the ratio the number of output and the

sum of the time to be degut and cut and clean, then multiply the result to the time

a single operation took which is 1200 seconds or 20 minutes. Based on the data

that the proponents gathered, the average production rate of the machine is

52.31 fish in a single operation of the machine

Level of Acceptability in Ease of Operation

Table 13. Level of Acceptability in terms of Ease of Operation
CRITERIA WEIGHTED STANDARD VERBAL
MEAN DEVIATION INTERPRETATION
1. The machine is
simple and easy 4.8 0.41 Highly Acceptable
to operate.
2. The switches
are properly 4.75 0.44 Highly Acceptable
labelled.
3. The machine
provides a stable
process of gutting 4.8 0.41 Highly Acceptable
and cutting
tilanggit.

Level of Acceptability in Safety of Operation

Table 14. Level of Acceptability in terms of Safety of Operation
CRITERIA WEIGHTED STANDARD VERBAL
MEAN DEVIATION INTERPRETATION
1. The wirings of
the machine are 4.6 0.50 Highly Acceptable
properly installed
 2. The machine
provides
sufficient
insulation to 4.55 0.69 Highly Acceptable
guarantee that
the surface of the
machine is not
hot.
3. The machine
provides safety 4.7 0.47 Highly Acceptable
warnings.

Level of Acceptability in Organoleptic Characteristics

Table 15. Level of Acceptability in terms of organoleptic characteristics of the fish
CRITERIA WEIGHTED STANDARD VERBAL
MEAN DEVIATION INTERPRETATION
1. The product
has an 4.6 0.50 Highly Acceptable
acceptable odor
after processing.
2. The product
has an
acceptable 4.75 0.44 Highly Acceptable
texture after
processing.
3. The product
has an 4.6 0.50 Highly Acceptable
acceptable color
after processing.

Based on the survey that the researchers conducted with the "ElBest” in

Brgy. Bayog, Mayondon, and Malinta in Los Baños, Laguna, the machine used

for producing a processed tilanggit have a highly acceptable level of ease of

operation. The respondents found the ease of using to be highly acceptable with

a weighted mean score of 4.8, while the ease of understanding the machine,

because it is properly labeled, came out to be highly acceptable with a weighted

mean of 4.75, while the stable method of gutting and cutting the tilanggit to be

highly acceptable with a weighted mean of 4.8, respectively.

 The level of acceptability in terms of safety of use in terms of the wirings

was found to be highly acceptable, with a weighted mean score of 4.6, while in

terms of the machine’s insulation is found to be highly acceptable with a

weighted mean of 4.55, lastly in terms of the cautions, and safety warning, the

respondents found it to be highly acceptable with a weighted mean of 4.7,

respectively.

The level of acceptability of the organoleptic characteristic of the output in

terms of its odor is found to be highly acceptable with a weighted mean of 4.6,

while in terms of the output’s texture is also found to be highly acceptable with a

weighted mean of 4.75, lastly is in terms of the output’s color is found to be highly

acceptable with a weighted mean of 4.6, respectively.

Cost and Return Analysis

Machine cost. The total cost of material used in fabricating the Tilanggit

Processing Machine was Php 62,185. With the labor cost of 40% of material cost
amounted to Php 87,059. With 60% mark up, the selling price would be Php

139,294.

Cost of operation. The annual operating costs is the total amount of fixed

costs and variable costs as shown Table 16 and Table 17. At daily production of

packs per day and assumed 188 working days per year, the annual production of

packs per day would be 50. Hence the cost per pack would be Php 86.40 which

would be sold at 60% mark up. It is assumed that the production is continuous

and the dried tilanggit is highly in-demand with these operating assumptions,

which means that the operating expenses would be recovered in only 1.63 years.

Table 16. Annual Operating Cost of Tilanggit Processing Machine for Dried

Tilanggit Production

ITEM
 Fixed Cost 45,967.08

Depreciation (Php) 12,536.46

Interest on Ave. Investment (Php) 19,152.98

R&M Cost (Php) 11,143.52

TSI Cost (Php) 3,134.12

Variable Cost 457,242.73

Labor Cost (Php) 65,800

Tilanggit Cost (Php-piece) 342,900

Packs Cost (Php - packs-1) 47,000

Power Consumption (Php) 1,542.73

Annual Cost (Php– yr-1) 503,209.81

Annual Production (packs – yr-1) 9400

Cost per pack of dried tilanggit 53.53

(Php – packs−1)

Computed of all the total expenses,

Table 17. Cost and Return Analysis of Operation of the Tilanggit Processing

Machine for Dried Tilanggit Production

PARTICULARS PRICE (Php)

 Annual Production (packs – yr −1) 9,400

Cost per pack of dried tilanggit (Php – 53.53

packs-1)
Variable Cost (Php - packs-1) 48.64

Annual Cost (Php – yr −1) 503,209.805

Gross Income (Php – yr −1) 812,160

Net Income (Php – yr −1) 308,950.19

BEP (Dried Tilanggit) 1,125.11

Payback Period (year) 1.6

Rate of Return (%) 61.40

Selling Price (Php - packs-1) 86.40

This analysis does not include facilities, miscellaneous equipment, electric and

water bills, transportation expenses, etc. Wage rate is Php350/day

Solving for the Cost and Return Analysis

Machine Cost −Salvage Value

Depreciation=
Machine Life
 139,294.4−13,929.4
Depreciation=
10

Depreciation=12,536.46

Machine Cost +Salvage Value

Interest = × Interest Rate
2

139,294.4 +13,929.4
Interest = ×25 %
2

Interest =19,152.98

R∧M Cost =Machine Cost × 8 %

R∧M Cost =139,294.4 × 8 %

R∧M Cost =11,143.52

TSI =Machine Cost × 2.25 %

TSI =139,194.4 × 2.25 %

TSI =3,134.12

¿ Cost =DepreciationCost + Interest Cost + R∧M Cost + TSI Cost

¿ Cost =12,536.46+19,152.98+11,143.52+ 3,134.12

¿ Cost =45,967.08

Number of Days
Labor Cost=Labor Cost ×
Year
 188
Labor Cost=350 ×
Year

Labor Cost=65,800

php kg of tilanggit
Tilanggit Cost= ×
kg year

60 5,715 kg
Tilanggit Cost= ×
kg year

Tilanggit Cost=342,900

php packs of tilanggit

Packaging Cost = ×
kg year

5 9,400 packs
Packaging Cost = ×
kg year

Packaging Cost =47,000

kWh number of days php

Power Consumed Cost = × ×
day year kW . h

0.746 188 11
Power Consumed Cost = × ×
day year kW . h

Power Consumed Cost =1,542.73

Annual Cost =¿ Cost +Variable Cost

Annual Cost =45,967.08+ 457,242.73

Annual Cost =503,209.81

Variable cost , kg=Labor Cost + Power Consumed Cost

Variable cost , kg=65,800+1,542.73

Variable cost , kg=42.65

Annual Cost
Cost per Pack of Dried Tilanggit=
Annual Production

503,209.81
Cost per Pack of Dried Tilanggit=
9,400

Cost per Pack of Dried Tilanggit=53.53

Gross Income=Selling Price × Annual Production

Gross Income=86.40× 9400

Gross Income=812,160

Net Income=Gross Income− Annual Cost

Net Income=812,160−503,209.81

Net Income=308,950.19

Net Income
Rate of Return= × 100
Annual Cost

308,950.19
Rate of Return= × 100
503,209.81

Rate of Return=61.40
 Cost of Operation
Payback Period=
Net Income

503,209.81
Payback Period=
308,950.19

Payback Period=1.63

¿ Cost
Break Even Period=
Selling Price(Pack)−Variable Cost (Pack )

45,967.08
Break Even Period=
86.40−48.64

Break Even Period=1,217.35