Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
I N T E R N A T I O N AL
A g r o p h y s ic s
w ww .ipan.lublin.pl/int-agrophysics
270
Pressure application
platform
Corky periderm
Peel
Cortex
Pith
Cambium layer
Starchy flesh
Applied pressure
Stresses in
compressed
root strands
e E
D d
C
B
A
c
b
g
a
F
G
H
A segment of root
cross-section
271
bed of spring-loaded knives is located above the beltconveyed moving root. The belt moves over a rigid table of
aluminium sheet that forms the pressure application
platform. The machine has facilities for varying the average
size h of the aperture between the knives and the belt, the
angle of inclination of the bed of knives to the belt surface, ,
the velocity of the belt, V, and the force in the springs (which
determines the force in play between the pressure application platform and the root, Fp). It is assumed that even
the roots that have surface taper angles ar higher than a will
pass through the peeling zone resting on the pressure
application platform as shown in Fig. 5.
From experimental observations reported by Adetan (2002),
the peeling process features the following process stages.
a) Separation of the tuber peel from the flesh by compression.
b) Penetration and removal of tuber peel with knives.
a
h
Knife bed
Fig. 3. Root slice rolling between moving pressure application platform and bed of knives: Fp force in play between pressure application
platform and root; a angle of inclination of the knife bed to the pressure application platform; h average clearance between knife bed
and pressure application platform; V linear speed of conveyance of root slices between the bed of knives and the pressure application
platform.
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF CASSAVA PEELING
F 2 3
p
d= k c
,
da
(1)
272
8
7
9
4
6
11
1
3
10
2
Fig. 4. Side views of the cassava tuber peeling machine: a) schematic illustration, b) photograph; 1 conveyor drum; 2 main frame; 3 bearing; 4 conveyor belt; 5 conveyor belt platform; 6 peeling blades; 7 knife assembly bearing frame; 8 spring load adjuster nut; 9 root
pick-up; 10 main frame link arm; 11 speed reduction gear box.
q= 2 da2
2
d
4- a - d ,
q = 2 dd a .
(3)
q = 2 dd a - d = 2 d( d a - d) .
2
(2)
q = f1 ( dd a )
where f1 is a functional notation.
2,
(4)
Fp
273
Fp
Knife assembly
Knife
w1
l1
a
w1
r -
Root slice
Pressure platform
Fig. 5. Typical placement of root in relation to knife bed and pressure platform: w1 depth of penetration of knife into the body of the root,
b vertical height of knife edges above the centre of the root rolling under the knife bed.
Fp
Fp
l1
da/2
q m = f 3 [F p d a ] 3 / l2 .
lc
? l1
l2
Fig. 6. Compressed shape of root slice: --- tuber profile before compression, profile of compressed tuber; l1 length of line of contact of a knife with the root, l2 total length of root surface being
compressed by the pressure platform, lc horizontal length of root
assumed subject to uniform maximum compression.
Substituting Eq. (1) into Eq. (3) and writing the result as a functional expression, q may be written as a function of Fp and
da as:
12
13
Fp 2
,
(5)
q = f2
d
a
da
(7)
l2
(6)
l1
Fig. 7. Compression load distribution on a root slice at the rootplatform contact surface.
274
(8)
(10)
C1 = f 7 [F p d a ] 3 / d a l .
k s wF p
l1 =
.
F sin [ a r - a]
(9)
C1 = f 6 A r [F p d a ] 3 / l1 d a .
(11)
(12)
ks =
(17)
ks 0.207.
Substituting this value of ks into Eq. (16), we have:
1
0.207 wF p 2
l1 =
.
F sin[ a r - a]
(19)
l1
w1
(20)
Knife
r -
Upper
portion
of root
(15)
(18)
(14)
350F
.
2400
F = 0.977+ 0.008803 d .
(13)
w1 = f 8
,
Fl1
where: w difference between the maximum diameter of
a root and the average height of knife bed above the pressure
application platform, h, Fp force in play between pressure
application platform and root, F force required to
penetrate root peel by a unit length of knife, l1 length of
line of contact of a knife with the root.
Assuming that f8 is a linear function:
(16)
wF p
w1 = k s
,
Fl1
Fl1
Fl1 2 sin[ a r - a] = k s wF p
C1 = f 5 A r [F p d a ] 3 / l2 d a .
k s wF p
(21)
C = f10 1 [F p d a ] 3 C 3 .
ld a
(22)
C = k 0 + k1 1 [F p d a ] 3 C 3 ,
ld a
(23)
(26)
There is a high negative correlation of 96.33% (coefficient of determination, 92.79%) between C3 and V implying that 92.79% of the variation of C with V is explained
by the linear model of Eq. (26) and that the higher V is, the
lower is the peel removal efficiency, C. A test of the
significance of correlation confirms that there exists a linear
relationship between C and V at 0.01 significance level.
The values of k0 and k1 were determined from the
experimental data by linear regression analysis. The value of
E was computed for each data point using Eq. (25). The data
points were then arranged in ascending order of the value of
measured C and divided into seven groups according to
these values of C. The averages of C and E for each group
were computed.
A regression analysis gives the relationship between C
and E as:
C = 0.5122 + 109.32 E .
where:
275
C=k0+k1E ,
(24)
1
ln l
E = 1 [F p d a ] 3 C 3 .
ld a
(25)
(27)
(28)
E = 1 [F p d a ] 3 ( 0.8- 012V
.
).
ld a
T a b l e 1. Variation of peel removal efficiency (C3) with velocity (V) of conveyance of roots
V (m s-1)
0.20
0.39
0.98
1.31
1.63
1.96
2.29
C3
0.758
0.738
0.693
0.686
0.582
0.527
0.524
276
Experimental
1,2
Theoretical
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
E
0
0
0,005
0,01
0,015
0,02