DESIGN, FABRICATION AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

OF A SMALL CAPACITY MUNGBEAN SHELLER*

RALPH KRISTOFFER B. GALLEGOS

2003-24592
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING

DR. ARSENIO N. RESURRECCION

Professor-in-Charge

*A design project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements in AENG 261 (Agricultural
Machinery Design), Second Semester 2009-2010.
 ABSTRACT

A mechanical mungbean sheller prototype was fabricated to address the need of small
scale mungbean producing areas of a low capacity mungbean sheller. The prototype was
composed of a cylinder-concave assembly as the shelling unit while cleaning was performed
through the aid of a blower and an oscillating screen. The sheller is made of locally available
materials and requires one operator to load the mungbean pod into the hopper.
The sheller’s operating and performance characteristics were established using mungbean
pods at MC1 = 10.7 %wb, MC2 = 12.8 %wb and MC3 = 18.9 %wb moisture levels. The highest
shelling efficiency (98.6%) and shelling recovery (96.4%) was obtained at the MC1 pod
moisture level while the lowest efficiency (96.6%) and recovery (93.0) was observed at the MC2
moisture level. The shelling capacity ranged from 19.5 kg/hr to 36 kg/hr depending on the
moisture content of the input pods. MC1 and MC2 pod moisture levels exhibited the highest
output purity of 97.3% while a lower purity of 94.8% was observed using MC3 pods.
Mechanically damaged kernels were estimated at a lowest of 5.88% at the MC1 level while the
highest value of 11.3% was noted in MC3 level.
Based on the results of the various tests, it is recommended that further studies should be
performed to determine the optimum performance characteristics of the sheller.
 INTRODUCTION

Mungbean or ‘mongo’ is a leguminous crop grown primarily for its seeds. Although
sometimes unnoticed, there is a high demand of mungbean in the local markets. This is triggered
by the popularity of mungbean as a cheap source of protein. Unfortunately, mungbean
production is seasonal and inadequate. Like in the case of peanut and soybean, local mungbean
production is still augmented by imports to meet its domestic and industrial demands.
Mungbean is popular to farmers because it does not require too much attention during its
growing stage, aside from occasional irrigation and fertilizer application. Mungbean is generally
grown in dry months of the year because of its relatively low soil moisture requirement.
However, the mechanization of mungbean production is one of the main challenges of the
industry. The seeds are usually broadcasted or drilled manually. Harvesting the dried pods is
considered to be tedious because of its maturity characteristics. The pods do not mature at the
same time, thus priming is widely done during harvesting. This operation is done manually and it
is a great challenge in terms of developing appropriate harvesting machinery.
Another tedious job in mungbean postharvest is the shelling and cleaning of the seeds. In
general, shelling is still done by manual threading and the seeds are cleaned by winnowing. Little
attempts had been made to mechanize the shelling operation of mungbean. Farmers in San
Mateo, Isabela modified rice threshers to become suitable for mungbean shelling. However, it
was reported that the conversion was costly and so is mungbean shelling using the machine
(Obena and del Rosario, 2008).
Large capacity shellers may not be appropriate because most mungbean farmers are
engaged only in small scale production. Thus, there is a need to develop a small capacity
mechanical mungbean sheller.

Objectives

This brief study aimed to:

1. Design and fabricate a small capacity mungbean sheller.
2. Perform preliminary performance tests of the mungbean sheller.
Scope and Limitations of the Study

This study focused only on the design, fabrication and performance evaluation of small
capacity mungbean sheller prototype. The tests were performed to establish the preliminary
operating and performance characteristics of the fabricated sheller. Optimization attempts in any
of the shelling and cleaning performance parameters were not included in this study.

Time and Place of the Study

This study was conducted from January to March 2010 at the Agricultural Machinery
Division (AMD), Institute of Agricultural Engineering (IAE), College of Engineering and Agro-
Industrial Technology (CEAT), University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB), College,
Laguna.
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The Philippine Mungbean Industry

Mungbean is a popular and rich source of protein. It also contains carbohydrates and
various vitamins and minerals. Ground or whole mungbean seeds are prepared as soup or cooked
in combination with other vegetables, fish or meat. Some bakery and homemade products use
mungbean as the main ingredient. Mungbean sprouts are also popular and young mungbean pods
are consumed as vegetable in some regions of the country. Vermicelli, or sotanghon, is
manufactured from mungbean starch. The per capita consumption of mungbean was estimated at
0.7 kilogram (PCARRD, 2007).
About 30 000 hectares of land is devoted to mungbean production as of 2009. The
Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS) reported a total of 23 195 metric tons of mungbean
production last 2009. The Ilocos Region leads among the mungbean producing areas, followed
by Cagayan Valley and Western Visayas.
Most mungbean varieties recommended for planting can yield an average of 1.1 tons/ha.
Being drought-tolerant, mungbean is grown during the dry periods of the year. Last 2003, it was
estimated that the total cost of production of mungbean was Php 11 045 per hectare with a
corresponding net income of Php 10 792/ha.
Last 2009, a kilogram of mungbean seeds was valued at an average farmgate price of Php
36.25. Wholesale and retail prices were estimated at Php 46.35/kg and Php 54.64/kg,
respectively. The country exported a total of 5.11 metric tons of processed mungbean products
while mungbean imports were estimated at 13.885 million metric tons (BAS, 2009).
Forciuncula, et al (2006) reported that low levels of domestic production have kept the
country to be a net importer of mungbean and mentioned that an appropriate policy environment
that will establish a national program for mungbean and other legumes is needed. Specific
recommendations include the provisions for adequate research and development support on
production, processing and utilization and improvements on government credit-marketing
support services that will promote productivity, link and expand markets. These
recommendations aim to address the observed problems of the industry which include, among
others, the lack of storage facilities, inadequate supply of quality seeds, lack of established
markets and credit facilities and the entry of lower-priced legumes-based products.
 Mechanization in the mungbean industry is still considered low. Planting is still done
manually, either by broadcasting or drilling. Harvesting is a tedious job wherein farmers
selectively pick the matured pods and leave the others to mature. Pods are sun-dried before
shelling is performed. Shelling is done by manual threading or beating and seeds are cleaned by
winnowing (Pinoy Farmer, 2009).
Obena and del Rosario (2008) noted the used of converted rice threshers as mungbean
shellers in San Mateo Isabela. However, converted rice threshers were costly and were observed
to produce low purity output and high broken percentage. A mungbean sheller was developed by
the Isabela State University and performed well in terms of shelling efficiency (99.8%). The
developed mungbean sheller which was intended to replace the converted rice thresher has a
shelling capacity of 60 kg/hr. However, the literature failed to mention if this sheller was able to
meet the capacity of the converted rice thresher.

Design Parameters
Mungbean shelling is similar to the process of shelling any leguminous pod. In most
legume shellers, the shelling assembly is commonly composed of a rotating cylinder in a
concave. Few researches are available for the peripheral speed of the cylinder, although a
cylinder rotational speed of 384 rpm was observed to be the optimum according to a study
conducted by Obena and del Rosario (2008). However, no data on the cylinder diameter used
was available, making the given rotational speed useless in determining the optimum peripheral
speed.
Initial basic settings of machine components were enumerated by Chakraverty, et al
(2003) although the data was limited only into threshing of different crops. The data on
mungbean shellers are not available but leguminous crops like soybean has a typical drum
peripheral speed of 7.8-18.8 m/s. This setting was the basis for the design of the shelling unit of
the fabricated mungbean sheller.
Early methods of cleaning the seeds include winnowing but this is not commonly adopted
in the cleaning units of sheller. Typical designs include the use of oscillating screens and
blowers. Gorial and O Callaghan (1990) as cited by Chakraverty, et al (2003), used the
aerodynamic properties of grains and observed that the upward injection of a mixture of grains
and chaffs in a vertical air stream was the best, followed by horizontal and downward injections,
for effective separation and minimum grain loss.
Mungbean seeds have a reported terminal velocity of 12 m/s and a drag coefficient of
0.55. These paramaters are important considerations for the design of blowers in a cleaning unit
of a sheller.
Vejasit and Salokhe (2004) observed that soybean threshing parameters like capacity,
efficiency, seed damage, losses and power consumption were significantly affected by the
moisture content of the crop, the cylinder speed, and the feed rate. These factors may also be
investigated in the case of mungbean shelling to determine the optimum operating and
performance characteristics of a mungbean sheller.
 METHODOLOGY

Design of the Mungbean Sheller

The design of the mungbean sheller involved the determination of initial shelling
parameters, selection of proper materials for fabrication, and setting of performance
characteristics.

The sheller is powered by a 1 hp electric motor. The selection of the primemover was
based on design considerations of cost, portability, and prime mover efficiency. The motor’s
power is transmitted through a belt and pulley transmission system to the shelling and cleaning
units of the sheller.
The shelling unit is composed of a cylinder-concave assembly. The cylinder was made of
galvanized iron sheet with rubber helix. The helix is made of used V-belts in attempt to reduce
kernel damage during operation. The concave was divided into two sections. The first half of the
concave is a corrugated perforated sheet and the second half is made of parallel round bars.
Preliminary tests were performed to set the rotational speed of the cylinder and proper cylinder-
concave clearance. The cylinder has an effective diameter of 190 mm and initially set to run at
approximately 437.5 rpm. This rotational speed can be translated into a cylinder peripheral speed
of 8.7 m/s. This speed is within the recommended drum speed for soybean shelling. This setting
was used due to the lack of values suitable for mungbean shelling (Chakraverty, et al, 2003).
Lower rotational speed was observed to be the optimum for the mungbean sheller developed by
the Isabela State University (2008) but the literature failed to mention the cylinder diameter in
order to compute for the optimum peripheral speed. The drum speed was used to determine the
proper combination of pulley diameters to be used for the prime mover and the shelling drum
shaft. The cylinder-concave clearance was set to approximately 5 mm which is slightly lower
than the average pod diameter obtained from actual measurements (Appendix C).
The cleaning unit is composed of an oscillating screen and blower assembly. The screen
was selected such that its holes are slightly larger than the mungbean kernels. Actual
measurement of the kernels (Appendix C) prompted the use of a screen with a ¼ inch diameter
holes. This screen is attached to a tray where the kernels and the shells are separated by the
reciprocating motion of the tray. The oscillation of the tray was achieved by attaching the tray in
a cam mechanism machined in the shaft of the shelling cylinder. A blower was included to
address the presence of light impurities in the kernels during the shelling operation. The initial
setting for the blower speed was determined by observing the behaviour of the shells, kernels,
and light impurities when air passes through them. To modify the air velocity coming from the
blower, the pulley attached to the blower shaft was iteratively chosen such that the scattering and
blower losses are minimized.

Performance Evaluation

Tests were performed to determine the performance characteristics of the fabricated

mungbean sheller. Since no existing standard method of test is available, the standard tests for
peanut sheller (PAES 221:2004) were used as a basis for testing the mungbean sheller. Only
those applicable provisions of PAES 221:2004 were modified and used to perform the tests for
the mungbean sheller.
The performance parameters determined during the tests include shelling efficiency,
shelling capacity, shelling recovery, input capacity, output purity, mechanically damaged
kernels, and total kernel loss. The total kernel loss consists of blower, separation, unshelled and
scattering losses. The operating characteristics of the different parts of the sheller such as the
speed of rotating components, blower air velocity and noise level were also measured during the
tests.
To determine the performance of the sheller at different moisture levels of the mungbean
pods, three moisture content levels were used during the tests. Three trials were made for each of
the moisture levels in which all of the previously mentioned performance parameters were
measured. Basic statistical analyses were performed to compare the results obtained from each of
the three moisture content levels.
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Operation and Specifications of the Mungbean Sheller

The fabricated mungbean sheller is presented in Figure 1. The mungbean pods are
manually loaded into the hopper for shelling in the cylinder-concave assembly. The mixture of
mungbean kernels, shells and other impurities is then discharged from the shelling unit through
the slots of the concave and falls down in the oscillating screen where kernels and small broken
shells are separated from the large shells. Small broken shells and light impurities are separated
from the kernels with the aid of the blower. The kernels are then discharged in the main kernel
outlet and the shells are conveyed to the main shell outlet.
The sheller requires only one operator whose primary work is to load the pods into the
hopper. Collection of the kernels can be done by placing an appropriate container below the
kernel outlet during the shelling operation. A sack may be attached to the shell outlet to prevent
the shells from scattering.

Hopper

Shelling Unit

Oscillating
Blower Screen

Main
Shell
Prime Outlet
mover

Main Kernel
Outlet
Figure 1. The fabricated mungbean sheller.
 The detailed specifications of the sheller are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Specifications of the mungbean sheller.

ITEMS Specifications
Overall Dimensions
Length, mm 1010
Width, mm 780
Height, mm 1040
Weight Without Primemover, kg 66
Type of Power Transmission System
Motor to cylinder shaft Belt and pulley
Motor to blower shaft Belt and pulley
Oscillating screen to cylinder shaft Connecting rod with cam
Shelling Cylinder
Galvanized iron sheet with
Type
rubber helix
Dimension (L xD), mm 405 x 190
Concave Component
Overall diameter, mm 220
Maximum clearance, mm 8
Minimum clearance, mm 3
Blower
Type Centrifugal
Number of units 1
Impeller Straight curve blade
Material Galvanized iron sheet
Number of blades 4
Oscillating Screen
Dimension (L x W), mm 715 x 470
Size of perforations, mm 6.35
Length of stroke, mm 15
Material Galvanized iron sheet
Primemover
Brand Mindong
Type Capacitor start motor
Rated power, kW 0.746
Rated speed, rpm 1750
Weight, kg 21
 The material cost for fabricating the mungbean sheller amounted to Php 7 400.00 without
the cost of the primemover. The detailed bill of materials for the sheller is presented in Appendix
A.

Moisture Content Determination and Variation

Actual observations during preliminary test trials revealed that the shelling of the
mungbean pods is affected by moisture content of the pod. Thus, it was decided that the
performance of the sheller be evaluated in varying levels of pod’s moisture content. Three
moisture content levels were used during the test.
The first moisture content level (MC1) used was the original moisture level of the dried
pods after harvesting. This is the usual moisture level where manual shelling is done because the
shell is relatively brittle at this condition. Unfortunately, all the pods in the pile were all dried
after harvesting. To develop higher levels of moisture, water mist was introduced to the pods
with the use of a knapsack sprayer (Figure 2). The second level of moisture content (MC2) was
slightly higher than MC1. The third level (MC3) was the highest in attempt to simulate the actual
moisture content at harvest. Matured pods were gathered from the field and the moisture content
was determined (Appendix B). It is of great desire that the mechanical sheller be suitable for
mungbean pods even just after harvest. This eliminates the drying operation done for the pods
before performing manual shelling and can reduce the associated cost in mungbean production.

Figure 2. Varying the pod moisture content by water spraying.

 Moisture content determination was done by using the oven method and the provisions of
PAES 221:2004 were followed. Although the standard method of determining moisture content
is for peanut, following this procedure subscribe to the premise that peanut and mungbean are
structurally similar in shelling perspective. Samples were obtained at different moisture levels
and the kernels and shells were manually separated. Mungbean shelling is largely affected by the
moisture content of the shell. This is because the failure of the shells is affected by moisture
content levels. The equations used and values obtained for moisture content determination is
summarized in Appendix B.
Table 2 presents the average moisture levels used during the tests. The actual pod
moisture content at harvest was also included for comparison.

Table 2. Moisture content levels used during the tests.

Moisture Level
ITEMS
MC1 MC2 MC3 MC at Harvest
Initial mass of pods, g 50.0 50.0 50.0 51.5
Initial mass of kernels, g 34.4 33.5 32.6 36.1
Initial mass of shells, g 15.6 16.5 17.4 15.4
Percent kernels, % 68.7 66.9 65.3 70.2
Percent Shells, % 31.3 33.1 34.7 29.8
Kernel MC, % wet basis 10.9 11.5 12.1 17.3
Shell MC, % wet basis 10.4 15.5 31.5 24.3
Pod MC, % wet basis 10.7 12.8 18.9 19.4

Performance Evaluation

The three levels of moisture presented in Table 2 were used to evaluate the performance
characteristics of the fabricated sheller. As previously mentioned, the performance parameters
determined during the tests include shelling efficiency, shelling capacity, shelling recovery, input
capacity, output purity, mechanically damaged kernels, and total kernel loss. The operating
characteristics of the different parts of the sheller such as the speed of rotating components,
blower air velocity and noise level were also measured during the tests.

Operating Characteristics
 The following table summarizes the average operating characteristics of the sheller.

Table 3. Operating characteristics of some selected sheller components at different

pod moisture levels
Pod Moisture Level
ITEMS MC1 MC2 MC3
Average
(10.7 %wb) (12.8 %wb) (18.9 %wb)
Prime mover RPM
Without Load 1787.3 1788.0 1779.0 1784.8
With Load 1778.3 1784.3 1763.0 1775.2
Shelling Cylinder Shaft RPM
Without Load 436.9 439.4 439.7 438.7
With Load 433.6 437.1 433.5 434.7
Fan Shaft RPM
Without Load 1389.3 1396.0 1386.7 1390.7
With Load 1388.0 1394.3 1374.3 1385.6
Fan Air Velocity, m/s
Without Load 4.4 4.1 4.4 4.3
With Load 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.0
Noise Level, db(A)
Without Load 76.7 77.7 - 77.2
With Load 88.3 87.7 - 88.0

The items presented in Table 3 were obtained when the sheller is in idle condition
(without load) and during operation (with load). It was confirmed that the speed of rotating
components decreases with the introduction of load. It is interesting to note however, that the
average speed of the motor at the three moisture levels with and without load is higher compared
to its nameplate rpm of 1750. This somehow suggests that the power required by the load is low
compared to the full load capacity of the motor. Although this is not an absolute basis, the speed
of the motor shaft is a good indication of the motor’s power. The power consumption during
operation may be verified by future studies to arrive at a proper motor size. The fan speed and air
velocity obtained were results of the installed combination of pulley diameters. Investigations
should be done to determine the optimum air velocity and fan speed. On the other hand, the noise
coming from the machine during operation is below the allowable level of 92 db(A) for a worker
continuously working for 6 hours.
Input and Shelling Capacities of the Sheller
 The input and shelling capacities of the sheller at different pod moisture levels is
presented in Figure 3. Input capacity, expressed in kg/hr is hereby defined as the weight of input
materials per unit loading time into the hopper. On the other hand, shelling capacity, also
expressed in kg/hr, is the weight of uncleaned shelled kernel received at the main kernel outlet
per unit time. These definitions were lifted from PAES 221:2004.

Figure 3. Input and shelling capacities of the sheller at different moisture levels.

The computations for the capacities presented in Figure 3 are summarized and presented
in Appendix H. It can be observed that loading wet pods tend to reduce the capacity of the
sheller as exhibited by the values in Figure 3. Higher input and shelling capacities were observed
in MC1 because dried pods have brittle shells, thus, less time is consumed for shelling. The
opposite is true for wet pods, wherein more effort and time are required to separate the kernels
from the shell. The flow of input material was regulated by the operator to avoid choking at the
hopper. Even though the amount of input material is the same for the three conditions, it took
longer time for wet pods to be unloaded because they needed to be partially separated from each
other before feeding into the hopper.
Shelling Efficiency and Shelling Recovery
 The shelling efficiency and shelling recovery of the sheller at different pod moisture
levels is presented in Figure 4. Based on PAES 220:2004 definitions, shelling efficiency is
hereby defined as the weight of the shelled kernels collected at all outlets, to the total kernel
input. It is a measure of the capacity of the sheller to remove the kernels from the shells. On the
other hand, shelling recovery is the weight of the shelled kernels collected at the main kernel
outlet, to the total kernel input of the sheller.

Figure 4. Shelling efficiency and shelling recovery of the sheller at different moisture levels.

The computations for shelling efficiency and shelling recovery are summarized and
presented in Appendix G. It was observed that the highest shelling capacity was attained when
the pods with lowest moisture level were loaded into the sheller. This is because dried pods are
relatively more brittle compared to wet pods. Figure 4 shows however, that lower moisture
content does not necessarily translate into a higher shelling efficiency. This was exhibited by the
pods with MC2 moisture level. Higher efficiency was obtained at a MC3 moisture level
compared to MC2. Actual pod inspection revealed that pods with MC3 moisture level were soft
due to high moisture content, and less effort is needed to shell them. On the other hand, the
moisture content of MC2 pods was not sufficient to soften the pods yet relatively high to render
the pods brittle. At this moisture content level, the pods became tough which explains the low
shelling efficiency obtained using MC2. One desirable characteristic of a sheller is to give high
shelling efficiency regardless of the moisture content of the input material. Various designs of
the cylinder-concave assembly should be explored and tested to improve the shelling efficiency
of the sheller at various moisture content levels.

Kernel Losses

A high shelling recovery means that minimum amount of kernels are lost and most of the
kernels are collected at the main kernel outlet. Shelling recovery gives an indirect measure of the
kernel losses incurred during the shelling operation. Four modes of kernel losses were examined
during each test trial. These included blower, separation, unshelled, and scattering losses. Figure
5 summarizes the magnitude of these losses at the three different pod moisture content levels.

Figure 5. Kernel losses from the sheller at different pod moisture levels.
Blower loss is defined as the ratio of the weight of kernels blown by the sheller fan to the
weight of the total kernel input of the sheller. To quantify this loss, a specially designed net was
used to trap the shell and kernels coming out of the blower outlet. Pods, especially the kernels,
with high moisture content were heavier compared to drier pods. Thus, the air from the blower
was not strong enough to blow the kernels. This explains the low blower loss observed using
MC3 pods. MC1 and MC2 levels exhibited higher values of blower loss since the kernels were
relatively lighter compared to MC3. To minimize blower losses, the optimum air velocity and
fan speed should be determined through further investigations.
Separation loss is the ratio of the weight of kernels that come out of the shelling unit at
the shell outlet, to the weight of the total kernel input of the sheller. Separation losses are kernels
conveyed into the main shell outlet instead of going into the kernel outlet. The magnitude of the
separation loss was observed to be affected by the oscillating speed of the screen. Higher values
were observed for MC2 pods compared to the MC1 and MC3 levels. At the MC2 moisture level,
shelled kernels stick to the shells during the flow of materials and eventually end up in the shell
outlet. The proper speed of oscillation of the screen should be set to separate the shelled kernels
from the shells during the cleaning operation.
The ratio of the weight of kernels that fell out from the machine during shelling operation
to the weight of the total kernel input of the sheller is termed as scattering loss. The scattering
losses observed at the three levels of pod moisture content were almost the same. This kernel
loss may be attributed to some unguarded outlets and gaps in the sheller. The design
configuration of different parts, especially the oscillating screen, should be optimized to reduce
this loss. Further, the hopper design should be modified to prevent the occasional backflow of
kernels during the loading process.
Unshelled loss is the ratio of the weight of kernels that remained in the pods collected
from all outlets, to the weight of the total kernel input of the sheller. The magnitude of unshelled
loss directly manifests in the value of the shelling efficiency discussed in the previous section.
After each test trial, unshelled pods were manually separated and weighed. It is interesting to
note that most of the unshelled pods were irregular in shape, too short, too thin or both as
compared to regular pods (Figure 6). The cylinder-concave clearance set during the trails was
based on the shelling of regularly shaped and sized pods. It was observed that the clearance was
too wide for the irregularly shaped pods.
 Figure 6. Unshelled and partially shelled pods.

Purity of Output

The cleaning unit of the sheller, composed of the screen and the blower, functions to
separate the shelled kernels from the shells and other impurities. The following figure shows the
comparison of purity at the three levels of pod moisture content evaluated during the tests.

Figure 7. Output purity of the sheller at different pod moisture levels.

 MC1 and MC2 pods showed the same average output purity. MC3 pods on the other hand
exhibited the lowest purity when shelled in the fabricated mungbean sheller. The quantity of
impurities mixed with the shelled kernels reflects the capacity of the blower to carry impurities
away from the kernels. As expected, the drier pods (MC1 and MC2) with drier shells are easier
to clean because the shells are lighter and are easily carried by the air from the blower. MC3
pods were more moist and heavier, thus the shells were not carried away by the air coming from
the blower. Further, moist shells tend to stick to the shelled kernels which offers more resistance
for easy cleaning. To improve the purity of the output, the cleaning unit’s performance should be
optimized. Proper oscillation speed of the screen and optimum speed the blower should be the
subject of further investigations to minimize the impurities in the shelled kernels.

Mechanically Damage Kernels

Even though the main objective of shelling is to separate the kernels from the shells, the
kernels should not damaged during the process. Figure 8 shows a comparison on the percentage
of damaged kernels during the shelling operation performed at the three levels of pod moisture
content.

Figure 8. Output purity of the sheller at different pod moisture levels.

 It can be noticed that the percentage of mechanically damaged kernels increases as the
pod moisture content increases. High moisture content in pods (MC3) translates to high moisture
content in the kernels, making them soft and easily damaged. Drier kernels (MC1 and MC2)
exhibited a higher resistance from crushing during the shelling operation. Proper cylinder speed
and cylinder-concave clearance should be explored and examined to reduce the quantity of
damaged kernels. High kernel damage in a pile renders the kernels susceptible to the attacks of
microorganisms which is detrimental to the quality of the mungbean kernels.
Based on the performance of the sheller at the different pod moisture levels used, a
simple rating system was devised to identify the most suitable pod moisture level to be used
during the shelling operation. This system operates on the premise that the machine will not
undergo any modifications and optimization, and the conditions used during the tests will be
approximately the same. In a scale of 1 to 3, 1 being the lowest and 3 being the highest, the
machine’s performances at the three moisture levels were compared using the criteria listed in
Table 4. The ratings were averaged and the results revealed that satisfactory machine
performance is expected when the pods loaded in the machine during the shelling operation have
moisture content close to 10.7% wet basis.

Table 4. Devised rating system for the sheller’s performance at three levels of pod moisture
content.

Rating at Different Pod Moisture Contents

Criteria
MC1 (10.7 %wb) MC2 (12.8 %wb) MC3 (18.9 %wb)
Input Capacity 3 2 1
Shelling Capacity 3 2 1
Shelling Efficiency 3 1 2
Shelling Recovery 2 1 3
Total Losses 2 1 3
Purity 3 3 1
Damaged Kernels 3 2 1
Average 2.7 1.7 1.7
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

A mungbean sheller was designed and fabricated to address the need of a small capacity
mechanical mungbean sheller. Mungbean shelling and cleaning are still done manually in many
mungbean producing areas. Large capacity mungbean shellers were developed by modifying rice
threshers but they were inappropriate in most areas because most mungbean farmers are engaged
only in small scale production. Thus, there is a need to develop a small capacity mechanical
mungbean sheller suitable for small scale mungbean production.
The sheller is composed of a cylinder-concave assembly as a shelling unit and a blower
and oscillating screen for its cleaning unit. It is powered by a 1-hp electric motor and made of
locally available materials. It requires one operator to manually load the mungbean pods for
shelling.
Tests were performed to determine the operating and performance characteristics of the
fabricated sheller. Since no standard method tests are available for mungbean, the provisions of
PAES 221:2004 (Standard Method of Test for Peanut Sheller) were modified and served as basis
for evaluation. The sheller was tested using three different levels of mungbean pod moisture
content (MC1 = 10.7 %wb, MC2 = 12.8 %wb and MC3 = 18.9 %wb). Analysis of the results
showed that the sheller exhibited acceptable values of all the criteria for evaluation but the
sheller performed well when pods with the lowest moisture content (MC1) were used. At MC1
moisture level, the sheller exhibited a 98.6% shelling efficiency with 97.3% kernel purity.
Although acceptable performance was observed, modifications and optimization on the vital
parts of the sheller are recommended to improve its efficiency and minimize losses and kernel
damage.
 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of analysis and observations during the tests, the following are
recommended to further improve the performance and operating characteristics of the mungbean
sheller:
1. An optimization study shall be done to determine the optimum operating and
performance characteristics of the sheller. Investigations should be made for the
following:
a. configuration and material of cylinder-concave assembly to improve shelling
efficiency and reduce kernel damage
b. cylinder-concave clearance to reduce kernel damage without compromising
shelling efficiency
c. cylinder speed to improve capacity and reduce kernel damage
d. oscillation speed of the tray to improve purity and reduce separation loss
e. blower speed and air volume to reduce the blower loss and improve output
purity
f. optimum moisture content level of pods for shelling
2. Different parts involved in the flow of materials should be properly designed to reduce
the scattering losses.
3. The hopper should be modified for easier and more regulated loading of material during
the shelling operation.
4. Moving component parts should be guarded for the safety of the operator.
5. Optimum prime mover size should be determined to further reduce the energy
consumption of the shelling operation.
6. Frame materials and dimensions should be properly selected to reduce vibration and
noise during the shelling operation.
7. Optimization on the machine dimensions and parts should be done to further reduce the
material cost of the machine.
8. The Agricultural Machinery Testing and Evaluation Center (AMTEC) should developed
standard specifications and methods of tests for mungbean shellers.
 REFERENCES

Agricultural Machinery Testing and Evaluation Center. 2004. Philippine Agricultural

Engineering Standard 220:2004 Standard Specifications – Peanut Sheller. AMTEC, UP
Los Baños

Agricultural Machinery Testing and Evaluation Center. 2004. Philippine Agricultural

Engineering Standard 221:2004 Standard Methods of Test – Peanut Sheller. AMTEC, UP
Los Baños

Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. 2009. Mongo Production 2008. Retrieved December 30, 2009
from www.bas.gov.ph

Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. 2009. Situation Report on Selected Vegetables and Root Crops,
January-June 2009. Retrieved February 26, 2010 from www.bas.gov.ph

Chakraverty, A. et al. 2003. Handbook of Postharvest Technology. New York: Marcel Dekker,
Inc.

Forciunculola, F. L. et al. (2006). Legumes Industry Analysis and Policy Assessment. Retrieved
February 26, 2010 from http://serp-p.pids.gov.ph/details.php3?tid=4000

Obena, A.C.P. and M. M. del Rosario. 2008. Mechanical Sheller for the Low Income Mungbean
Farmers in San Mateo, Isabela. Retrieved December 30, 2009 from
http://www.isu.edu.ph

Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development.
2007. PCARRD Commodities: Mungbean. Retrieved January 19, 2010 from
http://www.maidon.pcarrd.dost.gov.ph

Pinoy Farmer. 2009. Mungo (Mungbean) Farming. Retrieved January 19, 2010 from
http://www.agripinoy.net/mongo-mungbean-farming.html

Vejasit A. and V. M. Salokhe Studies on Machine-Crop Parameters of an Axial Flow Thresher

for Threshing Soybean. Retrieved February 26, 2010 from http:// ecommons. cornell.
edu/bitstream/1813/10417/1/PM%2004%20004%20Salokhe%0final%2012July2004.pdf
 APPENDIX A
Bill of Materials

Table A1. Bill of materials

Qt
No. Unit Material Unit Cost Total Cost
y
1 1.5 pcs 20 ft - 1 1/2" x 1/8" equal leg angled bar 260.00 390.00
2 1 pc 6 ft - 1" x 1/8" equal leg angled bar 60.00 60.00
3 1.5 pcs 20 ft - 3/4" x 1/8" flat bar 110.00 165.00
4 1 pcs 20 ft - 8 mm round bar 80.00 80.00
5 1.5 pcs 8 ft x 4 ft gauge 18 GI sheet 1150.00 1725.00
6 1 pc 5 ft - 1" dia cold rolled steel 285.00 285.00
7 1 pc 4 ft - 3/4" dia cold rolled steel 408.00 408.00
8 1 pc 3 ft - 1/2" dia cold rolled steel 150.00 150.00
9 1 pc 8 in - 1 1/2" dia cold rolled steel 344.00 344.00
10 1 pc 4 in - 2" dia cold rolled steel 192.00 192.00
11 1 pc 2 ft x 3 ft 1/4" dia perforated sheet 500.00 500.00
12 2 pcs 1" dia pillow block bearing 190.00 380.00
13 2 pcs 3/4" dia pillow block bearing 185.00 370.00
14 2 pcs Single row deep groove bearing (#6201) 75.00 150.00
15 12 pcs Hexagonal bolt, 3/8" x 1 1/2" 4.00 48.00
16 16 pcs Hexagonal nut, 3/8" 2.50 40.00
17 30 pcs Hexagonal bolt, 1/4" x 1" 3.00 90.00
18 30 pcs Hexagonal nut, 1/4" 2.00 60.00
19 20 pcs Flat washer, 3/8" 2.00 40.00
20 40 pcs Flat washer, 1/4" 2.00 80.00
21 10 pcs 5/16" x 1" set screws 8.00 80.00
22 8 pcs 1/8" split pin 2.00 16.00
23 50 pcs 1/8" x 3/4" blind rivet 1.50 75.00
24 1 pc 6-in long 1/4" x 1/4" square key 20.00 20.00
25 1 pc 3" dia 2-groove V-pulley 192.00 192.00
26 1 pc 4" dia single groove V-pulley 105.00 105.00
27 1 pc 10" dia single groove V-pulley 305.00 305.00
28 1 pc Section B V-belt (#62) 180.00 180.00
29 1 pc Section B V-belt (#46) 140.00 140.00
30 3 m 14/2 flat cord 2.0 mm2 20.00 60.00
31 1 pc Push button switch (20A) 150.00 150.00
32 1 pc Electrical plug 35.00 35.00
33 1 pc Marine epoxy 120.00 120.00
34 1 pc 1 Liter red oxide paint 105.00 105.00
35 2 kgs Welding electrode (6013) 105.00 210.00
36 3 pcs Used section A V-belt (#50) 10.00 30.00
37 1 pc 4 sq ft used tarpaulin 20.00 20.00
Grand Total Php 7400.00
APPENDIX B
 Moisture Content Determination

Table B1. Moisture content determination for MC1 = 10.7 % wb

Trial
ITEMS
1 2 3 Average

Initial mass of pods, g 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0

Initial mass of kernels, g 34.9 34.3 33.9 34.4
Initial mass of shells, g 15.1 15.7 16.1 15.6
Percent kernels, % 69.8 68.6 67.8 68.7
Percent Shells, % 30.2 31.4 32.2 31.3

Mass of kernel container, g 10.1 10.4 9.6 10.0

Initial mass of kernels, g 34.9 34.3 33.9 34.4
Final mass of kernels and container, g 41.1 40.9 40.0 40.7
Final mass of kernels, g 31.0 30.5 30.4 30.6
Kernel MC, % wet basis 11.2 11.1 10.3 10.9

Mass of shell container, g 23.8 24.0 19.4 22.4

Initial mass of shells, g 15.1 15.7 16.1 15.6
Final mass of shells and container, g 37.6 37.9 33.7 36.4
Final mass of shells, g 13.8 13.9 14.3 14.0
Shell MC, % wet basis 8.6 11.5 11.2 10.4

Pod MC, % wet basis 10.4 11.2 10.6 10.7

Table B2. Moisture content determination for MC2 = 12.8 % wb

 Trial
ITEMS
1 2 3 Average

Initial mass of pods, g 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0

Initial mass of kernels, g 33.1 34.2 33.1 33.5
Initial mass of shells, g 16.9 15.8 16.9 16.5
Percent kernels, % 66.2 68.4 66.2 66.9
Percent Shells, % 33.8 31.6 33.8 33.1

Mass of kernel container, g 10.7 9.1 11.5 10.4

Initial mass of kernels, g 33.1 34.2 33.1 33.5
Final mass of kernels and container, g 39.9 39.5 40.8 40.1
Final mass of kernels, g 29.2 30.4 29.3 29.6
Kernel MC, % wet basis 11.8 11.1 11.5 11.5

Mass of shell container, g 24.4 19.2 24.1 22.6

Initial mass of shells, g 16.9 15.8 16.9 16.5
Final mass of shells and container, g 38.5 32.7 38.4 36.5
Final mass of shells, g 14.1 13.5 14.3 14.0
Shell MC, % wet basis 16.6 14.6 15.4 15.5

Pod MC, % wet basis 13.4 12.2 12.8 12.8

Table B3. Moisture content determination for MC3 = 18.9 % wb

 Trial
ITEMS
1 2 3 Average

Initial mass of pods, g 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0

Initial mass of kernels, g 32.8 31.7 33.4 32.6
Initial mass of shells, g 17.2 18.3 16.6 17.4
Percent kernels, % 65.6 63.4 66.8 65.3
Percent Shells, % 34.4 36.6 33.2 34.7

Mass of kernel container, g 10.6 9.1 11.5 10.4

Initial mass of kernels, g 32.8 31.7 33.4 32.6
Final mass of kernels and container, g 39.5 36.7 41.1 39.1
Final mass of kernels, g 28.9 27.6 29.6 28.7
Kernel MC, % wet basis 11.9 12.9 11.4 12.1

Mass of shell container, g 23.8 23.9 19.4 22.4

Initial mass of shells, g 17.2 18.3 16.6 17.4
Final mass of shells and container, g 35.7 35.6 31.4 34.2
Final mass of shells, g 11.9 11.7 12.0 11.9
Shell MC, % wet basis 30.8 36.1 27.7 31.5

Pod MC, % wet basis 18.4 21.4 16.8 18.9

Table B4. Moisture content determination for moisture content at harvest

 Trial
ITEMS
1 2 3 Average

Initial mass of pods, g 50.3 50.5 53.7 51.5

Initial mass of kernels, g 35.3 35.6 37.5 36.1
Initial mass of shells, g 15 14.9 16.2 15.4
Percent kernels, % 70.2 70.5 69.8 70.2
Percent Shells, % 29.8 29.5 30.2 29.8

Mass of kernel container, g 10.1 10.4 9.6 10.0

Initial mass of kernels, g 35.3 35.6 37.5 36.1
Final mass of kernels and container,
39.4 39.7 40.6 39.9
g
Final mass of kernels, g 29.3 29.3 31.0 29.9
Kernel MC, % wet basis 17.0 17.7 17.3 17.3

Mass of shell container, g 24.4 19.2 24.1 22.6

Initial mass of shells, g 15.0 14.9 16.2 15.4
Final mass of shells and container, g 35.9 30.3 36.4 34.2
Final mass of shells, g 11.5 11.1 12.3 11.6
Shell MC, % wet basis 23.3 25.5 24.1 24.3

Pod MC, % wet basis 18.9 20.0 19.4 19.4

APPENDIX C
 Pod and Kernel Dimensions and Weight Determination

Table C1. Pod dimensions and weight

Pod Weight, g Pod Length, mm Pod Diameter, mm
MC1 MC2 MC3 MC1 MC2 MC3 MC1 MC2 MC3
Sample No.
(10.7 (12.8 (18.9 (10.7 (12.8 (18.9 (10.7 (12.8 (18.9
%wb) %wb) %wb) %wb) %wb) %wb) %wb) %wb) %wb)
1 1.3 0.6 0.7 122.0 70.0 73.0 6.93 4.94 5.61
2 1.2 1.4 1.4 112.0 104.0 102.0 5.85 6.86 6.92
3 1.0 0.7 1.1 92.0 82.0 87.0 5.49 5.77 6.00
4 0.5 0.7 0.7 71.0 80.0 64.0 5.92 4.45 5.99
5 1.1 0.6 1.0 94.0 67.0 88.0 6.73 5.37 6.63
6 1.0 0.7 1.0 88.0 71.0 81.0 5.69 5.14 4.94
7 1.0 0.8 0.7 103.0 83.0 73.0 7.21 5.59 4.66
8 0.8 0.8 0.8 83.0 73.0 81.0 5.06 4.82 4.88
9 0.7 0.8 0.7 83.0 77.0 68.0 4.81 5.44 4.76
10 0.7 0.7 0.8 67.0 74.0 79.0 6.36 4.86 4.72
11 0.8 0.5 0.9 83.0 64.0 91.0 5.08 5.30 6.06
12 0.5 0.8 0.8 73.0 83.0 81.0 5.85 6.86 6.92
13 0.8 0.5 0.9 82.0 63.0 83.0 5.73 5.01 5.18
14 1.3 0.9 0.8 118.0 84.0 78.0 6.10 5.74 4.82
15 0.7 0.4 0.9 76.0 47.0 84.0 5.03 5.04 5.60
16 1.2 0.5 0.9 101.0 51.0 94.0 5.06 4.81 6.36
17 0.6 0.5 0.8 73.0 48.0 77.0 5.61 6.92 6.00
18 0.5 0.7 0.8 77.0 68.0 74.0 5.01 5.74 5.04
19 0.8 0.8 0.9 74.0 87.0 81.0 4.81 6.36 5.08
20 0.7 1.0 1.0 80.0 105.0 99.0 5.44 4.86 5.30
21 0.6 1.5 1.2 67.0 138.0 101.0 4.93 7.00 6.83
22 1.2 0.9 0.7 71.0 93.0 89.0 4.81 5.76 4.97
23 0.5 0.7 1.3 50.0 83.0 115.0 5.44 5.85 6.37
24 0.9 0.8 0.9 85.0 81.0 85.0 4.76 6.86 5.69
25 0.6 0.8 0.9 81.0 83.0 83.0 5.20 6.92 5.14
26 0.4 0.8 1.1 83.0 67.0 99.0 5.85 5.73 4.94
27 0.8 0.9 0.6 78.0 83.0 71.0 5.23 5.77 6.00
28 0.8 0.9 1.2 84.0 73.0 100.0 5.85 4.45 5.99
29 0.7 0.6 0.7 68.0 69.0 69.0 6.86 5.03 5.06
30 0.9 1.0 0.9 90.0 107.0 85.0 6.92 5.04 4.81
Average 0.82 0.78 0.90 83.63 78.60 84.50 5.65 5.61 5.58
Gen Average 0.83 82.24 5.61
Table C2. Kernel Dimensions
Kernel Length, mm Kernel Diameter, mm
MC1 MC2 MC3 MC1 MC2 MC3
Sample No.
(10.7 (12.8 (18.9 (10.7 (12.8 (18.9
%wb) %wb) %wb) %wb) %wb) %wb)
1 4.035 4.300 5.730 3.695 3.305 4.330
2 5.405 6.440 4.775 3.835 4.295 4.100
3 4.385 3.715 4.720 3.710 3.910 3.460
4 5.325 5.280 4.430 4.070 3.890 3.485
5 4.585 5.405 4.320 4.965 4.100 3.730
6 4.985 4.490 4.630 4.020 3.390 3.620
7 4.880 4.820 5.125 4.000 4.135 4.085
8 4.915 4.480 5.135 4.270 3.650 3.990
9 4.910 5.040 5.530 3.825 3.590 3.980
10 5.055 5.555 5.150 4.320 4.235 3.965
11 4.670 4.975 4.505 3.450 4.290 3.810
12 4.555 5.350 5.135 3.805 3.945 3.825
13 5.120 5.400 5.030 4.030 4.355 3.845
14 4.665 4.420 4.280 3.750 3.625 3.525
15 4.355 3.940 4.685 3.590 3.470 3.665
16 4.420 3.915 4.465 3.910 3.595 3.705
17 4.710 5.670 5.455 3.750 4.230 3.930
18 6.060 5.430 4.710 4.050 4.270 3.610
19 5.045 5.010 6.610 3.960 3.930 4.700
20 4.665 4.470 5.370 3.925 4.420 4.055
21 4.020 5.045 5.180 3.900 3.500 3.950
22 6.005 4.330 4.920 4.060 3.710 3.450
23 4.580 4.745 4.200 4.100 3.620 3.810
24 5.170 5.490 4.650 4.260 4.120 3.515
25 4.490 4.945 4.215 3.470 3.780 3.620
26 4.295 3.885 4.645 3.405 3.830 3.630
27 5.060 4.580 4.750 3.585 3.810 3.860
28 4.875 5.385 4.355 3.780 3.950 3.630
29 5.115 4.620 5.030 3.850 3.825 3.880
30 5.440 5.320 5.035 4.040 4.330 3.875
Average 4.860 4.882 4.892 3.913 3.904 3.821
Gen Average 4.878 3.879

Table C3. Kernel-Pod Ratio

Sample No. Pod Weight, g Kernel Weight,g Kernel-Pod Ratio
 MC1 MC2 MC3 MC1 MC2 MC3 MC1 MC2 MC3
(10.7 (12.8 (18.9 (10.7 (12.8 (18.9 (10.7 (12.8 (18.9
%wb) %wb) %wb) %wb) %wb) %wb) %wb) %wb) %wb)
1 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.615 0.700 0.778
2 1.4 1.4 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.643 0.714 0.857
3 0.9 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.667 0.667 0.667
4 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.625 0.857 0.667
5 0.6 0.7 1.1 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.667 0.714 0.636
6 0.8 1.2 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.750 0.667 0.700
7 1.2 1.3 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.750 0.692 0.600
8 0.5 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.600 0.818 0.750
9 0.4 1.3 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.500 0.692 0.571
10 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.750 0.714 0.800
11 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.714 0.750 0.600
12 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.833 0.667 0.833
13 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.667 0.800 0.750
14 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.667 0.600 0.800
15 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.571 0.667 0.667
16 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.800 0.857 0.714
17 0.4 1.1 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.750 0.727 0.800
18 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.714 0.714 0.833
19 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.714 0.667 0.800
20 0.5 0.8 1.2 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.800 0.625 0.750
21 0.8 0.7 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.750 0.857 0.667
22 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.667 0.833 0.750
23 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.667 0.750 0.667
24 0.7 1.3 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.714 0.692 0.667
25 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.750 0.750 0.667
26 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.667 0.778 0.625
27 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.667 0.750 0.750
28 0.4 0.8 1.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.750 0.625 0.667
29 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.800 0.667 0.714
30 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.667 0.667 0.714
Average 0.73 0.88 0.71 0.49 0.63 0.51 0.697 0.723 0.715
Gen Average 0.77 0.55 0.711

Equation Used:

where Kr = Kernel-pod ratio

Wk = Weight of kernel, g
Wp = Weight of pod, g

APPENDIX D
Losses Determination
Table D1. Loss determination for MC1 = 10.7 % wb

Blower Loss Separation Loss Unshelled Loss Scattering Loss Total, Duration,
Trial
g kg g kg g kg g kg kg s
1 26.9 0.0269 8.9 0.0089 39.8 0.0398 27.7 0.0277 0.1033 280.0
2 32.2 0.0322 5.7 0.0057 28.8 0.0288 26.0 0.0260 0.0927 265.0
3 16.3 0.0163 6.7 0.0067 40.8 0.0408 24.5 0.0245 0.0883 232.0
Average 25.1 0.0251 7.1 0.0071 36.5 0.0365 26.1 0.0261 0.0948

Blower Loss Separation Loss Unshelled Loss Scattering Loss Wt of

Total, Cleaned
Trial
Wt, kg % Wt, kg % Wt, kg % Wt, kg % kg Kernel,
kg
1 0.0269 1.02 0.0089 0.34 0.0398 1.51 0.0277 1.05 0.1033 2.530
2 0.0322 1.24 0.0057 0.22 0.0288 1.11 0.0260 1.00 0.0927 2.504
3 0.0163 0.63 0.0067 0.26 0.0408 1.59 0.0245 0.95 0.0883 2.482
Average 0.0251 0.97 0.0071 0.27 0.0365 1.40 0.0261 1.00

Table D2. Loss determination for MC2 = 12.8 % wb

Blower Loss Separation Loss Unshelled Loss Scattering Loss Total, Duration,
Trial
g kg g kg g kg g kg kg s
1 53.4 0.0534 55.3 0.0553 93.9 0.0939 21.8 0.0218 0.2244 310.0
2 25.0 0.0250 18.8 0.0188 92.0 0.0920 24.7 0.0247 0.1605 298.0
3 3.9 0.0039 42.8 0.0428 70.4 0.0704 30.2 0.0302 0.1473 290.0
Average 27.4 0.0274 39.0 0.0390 85.4 0.0854 25.6 0.0256 0.1774

Blower Loss Separation Loss Unshelled Loss Scattering Loss Wt of

Total, Cleaned
Trial
Wt, kg % Wt, kg % Wt, kg % Wt, kg % kg Kernel,
kg
1 0.0534 2.12 0.0553 2.19 0.0939 3.72 0.0218 0.86 0.2244 2.298
2 0.0250 0.99 0.0188 0.75 0.0920 3.66 0.0247 0.98 0.1605 2.355
3 0.0039 0.15 0.0428 1.64 0.0704 2.70 0.0302 1.16 0.1473 2.458
Average 0.0274 1.09 0.0390 1.53 0.0854 3.36 0.0256 1.00

Table D3. Loss determination for MC3 = 18.9 % wb

 Blower Loss Separation Loss Unshelled Loss Scattering Loss Total, Duration,
Trial
g kg g kg g kg g kg kg s
1 13.0 0.0130 4.7 0.0047 43.7 0.0437 12.9 0.0129 0.0743 570.0
2 16.0 0.0160 6.3 0.0063 37.2 0.0372 24.8 0.0248 0.0843 433.0
3 18.5 0.0185 4.9 0.0049 49.9 0.0499 22.6 0.0226 0.0959 400.0
Average 15.8 0.0158 5.3 0.0053 43.6 0.0436 20.1 0.0201 0.0848

Blower Loss Separation Loss Unshelled Loss Scattering Loss Wt of

Total, Cleaned
Trial
Wt, kg % Wt, kg % Wt, kg % Wt, kg % kg Kernel,
kg
1 0.0130 0.53 0.0047 0.19 0.0437 1.79 0.0129 0.53 0.0743 2.362
2 0.0160 0.66 0.0063 0.26 0.0372 1.54 0.0248 1.03 0.0843 2.332
3 0.0185 0.76 0.0049 0.20 0.0499 2.06 0.0226 0.93 0.0959 2.326
Average 0.0158 0.65 0.0053 0.22 0.0436 1.80 0.0201 0.83

Equations Used:

Blower Loss Separation Loss Unshelled Loss Scattering Loss

Amount

Percentage

Bl = blower loss, Sl = separation loss, Ul = unshelled loss,

Scl = scattering loss,
kg, % kg, % kg, %
kg, %
Wb = weight of Ws = weight of Wu = weight of
Wsc = weight of scattered
blown clean kernel, separated clean unshelled clean
clean kernel, kg
kg kernel, kg kernel, kg

Where:
Tc = duration of collection, s
To = duration of operation, s
Wc = weight of cleaned shelled kernel, kg
Lt = summation of all losses, kg = Bl + Sl + Ul + Scl

N.B. In each of the trials in all moisture levels, To = Tc

APPENDIX E
Purity Determination

Table E1. Purity determination for MC1 = 10.7 % wb

 Initial weight Weight of Weight of
ITEMS of uncleaned impurities, cleaned Purity, %
kernels, g g kernels, g
Trial 1
Sample 1 519.5 24.98 494.5 95.2
Sample 2 519.7 16.61 503.1 96.8
Sample 3 519.9 11.79 508.1 97.7
Sample 4 519.7 10.93 508.8 97.9
Sample 5 527.5 11.65 515.9 97.8
Average 521.3 15.19 506.1 97.1
Total 2606.3 75.96 2530.3
Trial 2
Sample 1 500.5 8.94 491.6 98.2
Sample 2 502.1 9.79 492.3 98.1
Sample 3 512.3 12.87 499.4 97.5
Sample 4 503.4 13.45 490.0 97.3
Sample 5 551.6 20.70 530.9 96.2
Average 514.0 13.15 500.8 97.5
Total 2569.9 65.75 2504.2
Trial 3
Sample 1 528.0 12.39 515.6 97.7
Sample 2 512.2 12.77 499.4 97.5
Sample 3 510.0 17.68 492.3 96.5
Sample 4 506.8 13.22 493.6 97.4
Sample 5 500.7 19.48 481.2 96.1
Average 511.5 15.11 496.4 97.2
Total 2557.7 75.54 2482.2

General
1529.1 42.24 1486.9 97.3
Average

Table E2. Purity determination for MC2 = 12.8 % wb

Initial weight Weight of Weight of

ITEMS of uncleaned impurities, cleaned Purity, %
kernels, g g kernels, g
Trial 1
 Sample 1 513.4 12.51 500.9 97.6
Sample 2 513.1 9.37 503.7 98.2
Sample 3 517.8 16.66 501.1 96.8
Sample 4 501.1 17.36 483.7 96.5
Sample 5 321.2 12.32 308.9 96.2
Average 473.3 13.64 459.7 97.0
Total 2366.6 68.22 2298.4
Trial 2
Sample 1 506.0 12.32 493.7 97.6
Sample 2 507.1 13.66 493.4 97.3
Sample 3 504.7 11.97 492.7 97.6
Sample 4 503.0 16.86 486.1 96.6
Sample 5 403.2 14.35 388.9 96.4
Average 484.8 13.83 471.0 97.1
Total 2424.0 69.16 2354.8
Trial 3
Sample 1 505.5 14.35 491.2 97.2
Sample 2 503.2 8.08 495.1 98.4
Sample 3 505.0 11.49 493.5 97.7
Sample 4 502.4 11.32 491.1 97.7
Sample 5 502.0 14.86 487.1 97.0
Average 503.6 17.93 491.6 97.8
Total 2518.1 60.10 2458.0

General
1512.1 36.21 1475.8 97.3
Average

Table E3. Purity determination for MC3 = 18.9 % wb

Initial weight Weight of Weight of

ITEMS of uncleaned impurities, cleaned Purity, %
kernels, g g kernels, g
Trial 1
Sample 1 501.8 25.22 476.6 95.0
 Sample 2 509.1 28.02 481.1 94.5
Sample 3 505.2 29.14 476.1 94.2
Sample 4 501.2 31.31 469.9 93.8
Sample 5 485.6 27.66 457.9 94.3
Average 500.6 28.27 472.3 94.4
Total 2502.9 141.35 2361.6
Trial 2
Sample 1 513.7 26.38 487.3 94.9
Sample 2 502.8 26.04 476.8 94.8
Sample 3 503.6 24.13 479.5 95.2
Sample 4 505.6 30.98 474.6 93.9
Sample 5 442.5 28.40 414.1 93.6
Average 493.6 27.19 466.5 94.5
Total 2468.2 135.93 2332.3
Trial 3
Sample 1 507.0 19.56 487.4 96.1
Sample 2 505.1 20.83 484.3 95.9
Sample 3 505.1 26.54 478.6 94.7
Sample 4 507.9 29.90 478.0 94.1
Sample 5 422.0 24.43 397.6 94.2
Average 489.4 24.25 465.2 95.6
Total 2447.1 121.26 2325.8

General
1480.4 73.82 1406.6 94.8
Average

Equation Used:

where P = Purity, %
Wu = Weight of uncleaned kernel, g
Wc = Weight of cleaned kernel, g

APPENDIX F
Determination of Mechanically Damaged Kernels

Table F1. Kernel damage for MC1 = 10.7 % wb

Trial Weight of Kernel Weight of Mechanically Damaged

 Mechanically
Sample, g Damaged Kernel, %
Kernel, g
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Ave
100. 100. 100.
1 4.9 6.1 5.6 4.9 6.1 5.6 5.5
0 0 0
100. 100. 100.
2 6.8 6.9 5.4 6.8 6.9 5.4 6.4
0 0 0
100. 100. 100.
3 5.3 6.1 5.8 5.3 6.1 5.8 5.7
0 0 0
Average 5.88

Table F2. Kernel damage for MC2 = 12.8 % wb

Weight of
Weight of Kernel Mechanically Mechanically Damaged
Trial Sample, g Damaged Kernel, %
Kernel, g
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Ave
100. 100. 100. 10. 11. 10. 11.
1 7.2 7.2 9.5
0 0 0 2 2 2 2
100. 100. 100.
2 8.4 8.0 6.6 8.4 8.0 6.6 7.7
0 0 0
100. 100. 100.
3 8.9 6.3 9.0 8.9 6.3 9.0 8.1
0 0 0
Average 8.42

Table F3. Kernel damage for MC3 = 18.9 % wb

Weight of
Weight of Kernel Mechanically Mechanically Damaged
Trial Sample, g Damaged Kernel, Kernel, %
g
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Ave
100. 100. 100. 11. 11. 10. 11. 11. 10.
1 11.1
0 0 0 6 7 0 6 7 0
100. 100. 100. 11. 10. 11. 11. 10. 11.
2 11.4
0 0 0 9 8 4 9 8 4
100. 100. 100. 10. 10. 14. 10. 10. 14.
3 11.4
0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0
Average 11.3
Equation Used:

where Dk = Mechanically damaged kernel, %

Wd = Weight of mechanically damaged kernels, g
Ng = 100 gram sample
 APPENDIX G
Determination of Shelling Efficiency and Shelling Recovery

Table G1. Shelling efficiency and recovery determination for MC1 = 10.7 %wb

Wt of
Blower Scatterin Total Shelling Shelling
Separatio Unshelled Cleaned
Trial Loss, g Loss, Losses Efficiency, Recovery,
n Loss, kg Loss, kg Kernel,
kg kg , kg % %
kg
1 0.0269 0.0089 0.0398 0.0277 0.1033 2.530 98.489 96.078
2 0.0322 0.0057 0.0288 0.0260 0.0927 2.504 98.891 96.430
3 0.0163 0.0067 0.0408 0.0245 0.0883 2.482 98.413 96.565
Average 0.0251 0.0071 0.0365 0.0261 0.0948 2.506 98.597 96.358

Table G2. Shelling efficiency and recovery determination for MC2 = 12.8 %wb

Wt of
Blower Scatterin Total Shelling Shelling
Separatio Unshelled Cleaned
Trial Loss, g Loss, Losses Efficiency, Recovery,
n Loss, kg Loss, kg Kernel,
kg kg , kg % %
kg
1 0.0534 0.0553 0.0939 0.0218 0.2244 2.298 96.278 91.105
2 0.0250 0.0188 0.0920 0.0247 0.1605 2.355 96.342 93.619
3 0.0039 0.0428 0.0704 0.0302 0.1473 2.458 97.298 94.346
Average 0.0274 0.0390 0.0854 0.0256 0.1774 2.370 96.639 93.023

Table G3. Shelling efficiency and recovery determination for MC3 = 18.9 %wb

Wt of
Blower Scatterin Total Shelling Shelling
Separatio Unshelled Cleaned
Trial Loss, g Loss, Losses Efficiency, Recovery,
n Loss, kg Loss, kg Kernel,
kg kg , kg % %
kg
1 0.0130 0.0047 0.0437 0.0129 0.0743 2.362 98.206 96.950
2 0.0160 0.0063 0.0372 0.0248 0.0843 2.332 98.461 96.512
3 0.0185 0.0049 0.0499 0.0226 0.0959 2.326 97.939 96.040
Average 0.0158 0.0053 0.0436 0.0201 0.0848 2.340 98.202 96.500

Equations Used:

where Se = Shelling efficiency, % Bl = Blower loss, kg

Sr = Shelling recovery, % Sl = Separation loss, kg
Wc = Weight of cleaned shelled kernels, kg Scl = Scattering loss, kg
Lt = Summation of all losses, kg
 APPENDIX H
Determination of Input Capacity and Shelling Capacity

Table H1. Input capacity and shelling capacity determination for MC1 = 10.7 %wb

Trial
ITEMS
1 2 3 Average
Mass of Input Material, kg 4 4 4 4
Loading Time, s 227 213 195 212
Input Capacity, kg/hr 63.4 67.6 73.8 68.3
Shelled Kernel, kg 2.606 2.570 2.558 2.578
Shelling Time, s 280 265 232 259
Shelling Capacity, kg/hr 33.5 34.9 39.7 36.0

Table H2. Input capacity and shelling capacity determination for MC2 = 12.8 %wb

Trial
ITEMS
1 2 3 Average
Mass of Input Material, kg 4 4 4 4
Loading Time, s 255 245 185 228
Input Capacity, kg/hr 56.5 58.8 77.8 64.4
Shelled Kernel, kg 2.367 2.424 2.518 2.436
Shelling Time, s 310 298 290 299
Shelling Capacity, kg/hr 27.5 29.3 31.3 29.3

Table H3. Input capacity and shelling capacity determination for MC3 = 18.9 %wb

Trial
ITEMS
1 2 3 Average
Mass of Input Material, kg 4 4 4 4
Loading Time, s 365 316 272 318
Input Capacity, kg/hr 39.5 45.6 52.9 46.0
Shelled Kernel, kg 2.503 2.468 2.447 2.473
Shelling Time, s 570 433 400 468
Shelling Capacity, kg/hr 15.8 20.5 22.0 19.5

Equations Used:

where:
Ci = Input capacity, kg/hr Ca = Actual shelling capacity, kg/hr
Wi = Weight of input material, kg Wc = Weight of uncleaned shelled kernel, kg
Tl = Total loading time, hr To = Duration of operation, hr
APPENDIX I
 Documentation Pictures

Figure I1. Mungbean pods ready for harvest. >

< Figure I2. Oven method for pod moisture

content determination.

Figure I3. Shelled kernels discharged from >

the main kernel outket.
 < Figure I4. Determination of the overall machine
weight without its primemover.

Figure I5. Measurement of operating >

characteristics during the tests.

< Figure I4. The mungbean sheller in actual operation