Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

Egypt. J. Agric. Res.,93 (5) (B).

2015 481

DESIGN AND EVALUATE OF A SMALL HAMMER MILL

MOHAMED, T. H., H. A. RADWAN,


A. O. ELASHHAB and M. Y. ADLY*

Agric. Eng. Research Institute, ARC, Dokki, Giza, Egypt.


Abstract
he high volume, low density characteristics of agricultural

T produced biomass are a significant impediment for using


biomass for many processes as feedstock and bio-energy
production. The low density of biomass increases transportation
costs and decrease the performance of the different biomass
processing equipments. Reducing appropriate size processes is the
first step in densification. Crushing machine is considered as the
main laboratory equipment for crashing samples. Imported
laboratory crushing machines cost a foreign currency and suffered
from shortage of spare parts. The aim of this research is design,
manufacturing and evaluate of a small crushing machine suitable
for both laboratory and commercial use for animal production
producers have a small scale production capability. The
methodology adopted was examining the most critical defects of
conventional hammer mills and provide solutions. The small
hammer mill was designed and constructed from locally available
materials for crushing and grinding grain such as maize, and other
materials rice straw, cotton straw, broad beans, etc. into small size
enough to pass through the holes of the cylindrical sieve positioned
beneath the hammer assembly. The crushing and grinding process
is achieved by the use of a set of hammers in a crushing chamber
which beats the materials feeds into drive particles small enough to
pass through the aperture of the replaceable sieve positioned
beneath the crushing chamber. The size aimed depends on the
aperture of the replaceable screen; the fineness ranging from 600
µm to 2500µm. Based on the power ratings and output shaft speed
of the existing crushing and grinding machines it was found that
the main shaft speed rotating speed of 2000 rpm transmitted by a
belt drive from a 1 kilowatt electric motor is suitable to mill
effectively. The results showed that the maximum crushing
efficiency was 94.7%. Also, the results showed a relation between
nominal aperture (𝑁𝑎 ) and the cumulative weight (𝐶𝑤 ) obeyed a
logarithmic function of the form 𝐶𝑤 (%) = 𝐴 𝑙𝑛(𝑁𝑎 ) + 𝐵 , (A,
B=constant).
Keywords: Design, small hammer mill, materials particles,
fineness, shaft speed

INTRODUCTION

Although, both milling and grinding is one of the oldest methods of processing
biomaterials, a very little knowledge about optimum processing based on the
mechanical properties of the grinding materials. Lopo, (2002) mentioned that particle
size reduction is an important procedure for utilizing biomass to use it in energy
production and animal feedstock. Particles size and their densification are important
482 DESIGN AND EVALUATE OF A SMALL HAMMER MILL

for harvesting, transporting, and drying. Hill and Pulkinen, (1988) and Samson et al.,
(2000) studied the macro-performance of grinders for hammer mills ground forage
crops, grains and biomass materials. Balk , (1964) related hammer mill specific energy
to moisture content and feed rate of coastal Bermuda grass. Samson et al., (2000)
reported a specific energy consumption of 44.9 kW h/t for a hammer mill with a
screen size of 5.6 mm with switch grass. Ebling and Jenkins, (1985) mentioned that
moisture content, bulk density, true density and particle size and shape of biomass
particles after grinding were important for downstream processing for 62 kinds of
biomass. Hammer mills have wide applicability in biomass size reduction because of
their simple design, ruggedness, and versatility. According to Scholten and McEllhiney,
(1985) mentioned that hammer mills have achieved merit because of their ability to
finely grind a greater variety of materials than any other machine. Hall and Davis,
(1979; Lopo, 2002) mentioned there are some factors influence hammer mill
performance including tip speed, grinding rate, screen size, and clearance. Hammer
tip speeds can vary because of equipment design and size-reduction needs. However,
tip speeds generally range from 76 m/s to 117 m/s. Also, they mentioned that tip
speeds are usually achieved at shaft speeds ranging from 2500 to 4000 rpm.
Vigneault et al., (1992) mentioned that there are interactions between hammer tip
speed and hammer thickness affected energy efficiency of the hammer mill. Vigneault
et al., (1992) Indicated the results indicated that thin hammers saved 13.6% in
energy consumption and increased the grinding rate by 11.1% for a similar quality of
grain grind. Specific energies ranged from 5.5 to 9.5 kWh/ton for hammer thickness
ranging from 1.59 to 8.00 mm, respectively. Also, specific energies ranged from 4.6 to
12.9 kWh/t for hammer tip speeds ranging from 54 to 86 m/s, respectively, for a 6.35
mm thick hammer. Hall and Davis, (1979) indicated the size of the resulting particles
depends on the size of the sieves installed in the machine and on the feeding rate of
material into the grinder. The capacity of a machine to grind particles depends on the
power rating of the machine, and also the final size and moisture content of the
resulting particles. Hammer mill uses high-velocity rotating shafts to impart kinetic
energy to the processed material. The leading edge of the “hammers” beat the
biomass until it is small enough to pass though sieves. The hammer can be fixed or
freely swinging. The hammers can be inverted and rotated such that each hammer
can be used in two or four different positions. This contributes to the low maintenance
requirement for the hammer mill machine. The hammer is especially useful for
grinding medium and fine material and because less power is needed for fine
grinding. The resulting fineness of the material depends on the screen size and rate of
movement through the grinder. The capacity of a particular grinder depends upon the
MOHAMED, T. H. , et al. 483

grain, fineness, power available, speed, and moisture content of the product. Normally
about 1 kW is required to grind 1 kg/min for medium grinding. Mani et al., (2002)
indicted that the power requirements for grinding biomass are related to biomass
selection, initial and final particle sizes (geometric mean diameter), moisture content,
and feed rate of the material. Switch grass required more specific energy for hammer
mill grinding than straws and corn stover. Marcotte et al., (2002) mentioned that low
fiber content and the presence of sponge vascular tissues in the stem, it was expected
that corn stover would consume less energy. Little information related particle size to
power requirements. Most studies indirectly studied particle size by focusing on the
effects of screen size. Power requirements generally increased as the feedstock
moisture content increased, within typical ranges of moisture content. Hall and Davis,
(1979) stated “For ear corn and shelled corn the energy increase occurs as the
moisture increases from 9 to 26%. From 1½ to 2 times as much feed can be ground
at 10% as at 25% moisture.” Finally, approximately 1 kW was needed to process 1
kg/min of medium size material Mani et al., (2002) mentioned that the driven hammer
mill screen size required lower specific energy consumption for all biomass samples.
The specific energy consumption for grinding wheat straw using hammer mill screen
sizes of 0.794, 1.588 and 3.175 mm were 51.55, 39.59 and 10.77 kWh/t respectively
at 8.30% (wb) moisture content Screen size dictated final particle sizes. Yang et al.,
(1996) indicated alfalfa mean particle length, width, area, and perimeter ranged from
0.074-0.979 mm, 0.034-0.425 mm, and 0.002-0.295 mm2 , 0.188-2.421 mm,
respectively, for the sieve opening from 20 to 850 μm. The median particle size of
alfalfa grind was 238 μm with standard deviation of 166 μm. Hauhouot et al., (1997)
mentioned that a hammer mill with 16 hammers, a 4.58 mm screen, and an
operating speed of 3600 rpm was more effective at grinding a mixture of 1.24 mm
(minor diameter) cheat seed, chaff, and straw than a roller mill set with a roller gap
greater than 0.1mm. A notable study by Iwaasa et al., (1995) examined the cutting
force for alfalfa at the node locations and at internodes locations. Tensile and shear
properties of the biomass can influence the energy requirements for biomass size
reduction. Some authors have studied cutting and shearing forces for biomass
materials. The location of the applied force has also been studied. Another study by
O’Dogherty et al. , (1995) scrutinized the tensile and shear strengths of cutting stems
between nodes. In addition, Annoussamy et al., (2000) studied shearing and bending
stresses in wheat straw. Another aspect of biomass size reduction is material
property. The mechanical properties of biological materials are not always possible to
determine as precisely as metals. Also, Prince et al., (1968) mentioned that the
484 DESIGN AND EVALUATE OF A SMALL HAMMER MILL

difficulty of exact physical measurements like diameter, length, and thickness, may
lead to errors in calculating stress, strain and modulus of elasticity.
The objective of this study is identifying, organizing, and interpreting biomass, and
related, particle size reduction studies with special attention given to hammer mills.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The design was based on the process of allowing the strong and durable
materials of hammer mill to beat any biomass materials that obstruct hammer mill
way during operation. Therefore, the result was breaking the biomass material which
can be referred as size reduction operation. This operation usually occurs in a closed
chamber called the crushing chamber. The physical and mechanical properties of the
crushed material were studied to help immensely in the design of various
components of the rotor.
Theoretical design consideration:-
The design was carried out to occur the safety basics for the operator. The
deflection of the hammers while in operation was considered in the design. Swinging
instead of stiff hammers was used to avoid rotor and hammers from getting stocked
in case a hammer comes in contact with a material hard to break at the first impact.
Design theories and calculations determination of shaft speed:-
The shaft speed was calculated by using the following formula:-
𝐷1 𝑁2
= Parmley ,1985................(1)
𝐷2 𝑁1

where:
𝐷1 = Diameter of drive pulley, mm;
𝐷2 = Diameter of driven pulley, mm;
𝑁1 = Revolution of the drive pulley, rpm;
𝑁2 = Revolution of the driven pulley, rpm.
The nominal length of the belt was calculated by using the following formula:-
𝜋 (𝐷1 −𝐷2 ) 2
𝐿 = 2𝐶 + (𝐷1 + 𝐷2 ) + ( ) Parmley ,1985…………………………….(2)
2 4𝐶

where:
L = Length of the belt, mm;
C = Centre distance between driven pulley and the drive one, mm.
Centre distance minimum, 𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛 was calculated using the following formula:-
𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.55 (𝐷1 + 𝐷2 ) + 𝑇 Patton, 1980……………….………….……(3)
The maximum centre distance was calculated using the Patton, 1980 formula:-
𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.55 (𝐷1 + 𝐷2 ) + 𝑇 ……………………………………..….……….(4)
MOHAMED, T. H. , et al. 485

where:
T =Nominal belt thickness;
𝐷1 =Driven pulley diameter;
𝐷2 = Drive pulley diameter.
The belt contact angle (𝛽) is given by equation, Hall et al., 1980
𝑅−𝑟
𝑆𝑖𝑛−1 𝛽 = ( ) ………………………………………….………..(5)
𝑐

where:
R = Radius of the driven pulley, mm;
r = Radius of the drive pulley, mm.
The angles of wrap (α1 andα2 ) for drive and driven pulleys were given by Hall et al., 1980:-
𝑅−𝑟
𝛼1 = 180 − 𝑆𝑖𝑛−1 ( ) …………………….…………(6)
𝑐
𝑅−𝑟
𝛼2 = 180 − 𝑆𝑖𝑛−1 ( ) ……………………………….(7)
𝑐

where:
𝛼1 = Angle of wrap for the drive pulley;
𝛼2 = Angle of wrap for the driven pulley.
The driven belt tension determined using the following formula:- Hall et al., 1980
(𝑇 −𝑀𝑣 )
𝑇2 = 1 𝜇𝛼2 ……………………………….(8)
𝑒𝑥𝑝( 1 )
𝑆𝑖𝑛2𝜃

𝑇1 = S.A
S = The maximum permissible belt stress, N/𝑚2 ;
A = Area of belt, 𝑚2 ;
M =Mass per unit length of belt, N. 𝑚;
𝜇 = Coefficient of friction between the belt and the pulley surface,
𝜃 = Arc of contact of the belt on the pulley, Rad;
𝑀. 𝑣 2 = Centrifugal force acting on the belt, N.
The torque and power transmitted for the shaft were determined using the following
formula:-
The torque available at the driven pulley can be expressed as:- Hall et al.,1980
𝑇𝑟 = (𝑇2 - 𝑇1 ) R ………………………..…………..(9)
where:
𝑇𝑟 = Resultant torque, Nm;
𝑇1 & 𝑇2 = Tension in the belt, N;
R = Radius of driven pulley, mm.
The available power can be expressed as:- Hall et al., 1980
P = 𝑇𝑟 . R ×𝜔𝑎 = (T2 - T1) R 𝜔𝑎 ……….……………………………(10)
where:
P = Power transmitted, Watts;
𝜔𝑎 = Angular velocity, rad/s.
486 DESIGN AND EVALUATE OF A SMALL HAMMER MILL

Hammer weight determined using the Patton 1980 formula:-


𝑊ℎ = 𝑚𝑛 × 𝑔 ………………………………………….(11)
where:
𝑚𝑛 = Mass of the hammer, kg;
g = Acceleration due gravity =9.81.
The fabricated material was mild steel, density of 7.85g/𝑐𝑚3
The centrifugal force exerted by the hammer using the Flavel and Rimmer 1981 formula:-
𝑚𝑣
𝐹 = 𝜔𝑟√𝑚𝑠 = …………………………………..…… (12)
𝑟

where:
ω = Rotational speed of the rotor, radians/seconds;
m = Mass of the ore, kg;
r = Radius of the rotor, m;
s = The ore stiffness to breakage, N/m.
2𝜋𝑟𝑁
ω=
60
where:
𝑁 = Number of reveltions.
Hammer shaft diameter was calculated using the Spolt, (1988) formula:-
𝐿2 𝑊
𝑀𝑏 𝑚𝑎𝑥 = …………………………………..………(13)
8

where:
𝑀𝑏 𝑚𝑎𝑥 = Maximum bending moment ,N.m;
𝐿 =Shaft length, mm;
𝑊 = Force per unit length, N/m
𝑀𝑏 𝑌𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝛿𝑠 (𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒) =
𝐼
𝑀
𝐼/( 𝑌𝑚𝑎𝑥. ) =Z=𝛿𝑠 = 𝑏 Spolt, (1988)……………………………………(14)
𝑍

where:
𝑌𝑚𝑎𝑥 = Distance from neutral axis to outer, m;
𝐼 = Moment of inertia, 𝑚4 ;
Z =Section modulus, 𝑚3 .
For round bar:-
𝜋𝑑 4
𝐼=
64
𝜋𝑑 3
𝑍=
32
Twisting of the rotational shaft is neglected from the torsion rigidly calculation.
The rotational shaft diameter was calculated using the following formula:-
The ASME code equation for solid shaft having little or no axial loading is
16
𝑑3 = √(𝐾𝑏 𝑀𝑏 )2 + (𝐾𝑡 𝑀𝑡 )2 Hall et al.,(1980)…………………….………(15)
𝜋𝛿𝑠
MOHAMED, T. H. , et al. 487

where:
d = Shaft diameter;
 s =Shear stress from tables for shafts with keyway;
K b = Combined shock and (0) fatigue factor applied to bending moment;
K t = Combined shock and fatigue factor applied to torsional moment;
M t =Torsional moment, N.m ;
M b =Bending moment, N.m .
Hammer mill calculated parameters:-
The designed hammer mill calculated parameters tabulated in Table (1).
Table (1): Results of designed hammer mill calculated parameters

Parameters Symbol Value Unit

Speed N 2000 r.p.m

Length of belt L 1075 mm

Angle of wrap for drive pulley α 165 Degree

Belt contact angle B 3 Degree

Angle of wrap for driven pulley α2 180 Degree

Tension in the slack side of belt T2 16 N

Tension in the tight side of belt T1 130 N

Torque transmitted to the shaft T 8 Nm

Power transmitted to the shaft P 500 W

Weight of hammer 𝑊ℎ 0.47 N

Centrifugal force C.F 240 N

Diameter of main shaft d 32 mm

Maximum bending moment 𝑀𝑏 max. 25 Nm

Weight of hammer shaft Ws 0.25 N

Design calculation of the major parts of the hammer:


 Main Shaft: A 32 mm diameter rod was cut to a 320 mm length using power
hacksaw. The shaft was then faced and center drilled. It was held between its centers
and step turned to 16 and 25 mm. Keyway was cut on it using milling machine.
 Hammer: A three mm thick bar of 30 mm width was cut into 70 mm pieces. A hole
of 13 mm was drilled at the bottom of each hammer, using twist drill, to enable it to
be put into position on the hammer shaft.
 Hopper: It is pyramidal in shape and it was made from 1.8 mm thick plate. It was
dimensioned 200 x 200 mm top opening, 50 x50 mm base opening and height 200
mm. The plate was marked and cut to sizes and then welded together.
488 DESIGN AND EVALUATE OF A SMALL HAMMER MILL

 Supporting Bar (Stand): Two 40 x 40 mm mild steel bar was cut on 3 mm thick plate
using hacksaw. Three holes of 25, 12 and 12 mm were drilled. Fig. (1) showed a
schematic of design hammer mill. Also, Fig.(2) showed the machine after fabrication.

4 6 7 8
5
3
9
10
2

1
ELEVATION SIDE VIEW

DIM. IN mm.

Fig. (1): Schematic of design hammer mill


1- Main frame ,2-Single phase Electrical motor 1 k Watt, 3-Hammer mill housing ,4-
Hammer mill, 5- Sieve, 6-Feeding hopper ,7-Hammer mill shaft , 8-Driven pulley, 9-
Belt, 10-Drive pulley.

Fig. (2): Image of the fabricated hammer mill


MOHAMED, T. H. , et al. 489

Instruments:-
1- Weighing balance: to measure the mass of the output materials (accuracy of 1.0
g).
2-Stopwatch to record the time consumed during calculation productivity at different
experiments.
3-Tachometer: to measure the rotation speed of the rotor.
4-Eletitcal oven: to measure moisture content of the samples.
5- Sets of sieves (0.6 mm, 1 mm, 1.2 mm, 1.4 mm, 1.7 mm and 2.5 mm).
Testing Procedures:-
The designed machine was tested on maize and broad bean seeds. Two kg of
maize seeds was fed into the crushing chamber of the machine through the feed
hopper. The consumed time was recorded for crushing the sample. The sample to
fully discharge time was noted. The weight of the crushed sample was taken after
crushed. Sample was taken for a sieve analysis to separate the fine crushed materials
from the coarsely crushed sample. The weight of both the fine samples and coarse
samples were recorded according to the sieve sizes (0.6 mm, 1 mm, 1.2 mm, 1.4 mm,
1.7 mm and 2.5 mm). The process was repeated for samples of weight 4kg and 6kg
respectively. The process of crushing weights 2kg, 4kg and 6kg were taken several
times, sieve analysis was presented from all the trials and the average was taken for
each weight sample. This procedure was made for both material used as presented in
the results for standard and design machine.
The following formula was used to calculate the crushing effciency :-
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙
𝐶𝑟𝑢𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 = ……………..………(16)
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙
𝑀𝑏 − 𝑀𝑎
L𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠 = ………..……………(17)
𝑀𝑏

where:
𝑀𝑏 = Mass before grinding, kg;
𝑀𝑎 = Mass after grinding, kg.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Designed hammer mill performance:


(1) Relation between feed rate, crushing efficiency and losses:
The designed hammer mill was fed with maize seeds 13% moisture content with
feed rate of (2, 2.07 and 2.14) kg/min ; (2kg/60 sec , 4kg/116sec , 6kg/121sec), the
crushing efficiency were (93.00%, 93.70% and 94.40% )respectively. Meanwhile, the
losses were (7.00%, 6.30% and 5.60%) respectively. The results with the broad bean
13 % moisture content with feed rate of (1.92, 2.03 and 2.09 )kg/min, the crushing
490 DESIGN AND EVALUATE OF A SMALL HAMMER MILL

efficiency were (92.75%, 93.60% and 93.71%)respectively. Meanwhile, the losses


were (7.25%, 6.40% and 6.29%) respectively. The difference between results was
due to the mechanical properties of maize and broad bean seeds. The loss was
obtained due to sticking the powdery materials to the wall of the crushing hammer
and some strains that not passed though the screen.
(2)Designed hammer mill sieve analysis:
The maximum feed rate of the machine 2.14 kg/min was selected to evaluate
the performance of the designed machine. Fig. (3) shows the Sieve analysis graph of
cumulative weight percentage (retained and passed) of maize seeds against the
Nominal aperture from the designed machine at different feed rate. From Fig. (3),
the percentage of cumulative weight of maize at feed rate 2.14 kg/min passed and
the percentage cumulative retained against nominal aperture (sieve size), it realized
the percentage of cumulative passed curve intercept the percentage cumulative
retained curve in point of (1700 µm , the passed cumulative weight was 60% and
retained cumulative weight was 40%). Also, Fig. (4) shows Sieve analysis graph of
cumulative weight percentage retained and passed of broad bean seeds against the
Nominal aperture from the designed machine at different feed rate.
MOHAMED, T. H. , et al. 491

Feed Sieve analysis graph of cumulative weight percentage


Rate (retained and passed)
(kg/min)
100% RETAINED
PASSED
90% Log. (RETAINED)
80% Log. (PASSED)
Cummulative weight (%)
70%
60%
y = 0.3445ln(x) - 2.2816
50% R² = 0.9316
2 40%
30%
20%
y = -0.687ln(x) + 5.514
10% R² = 0.8856
0%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Nominal Aperture( μm)
100% RETAINED PASSED
90% Log. (RETAINED) Log. (PASSED)
Cummulative weight (%)

80%
70%
60%
50% y = 0.3251ln(x) - 2.1558
2.07 R² = 0.9267
40%
30%
20% y = -0.683ln(x) + 5.4939
10% R² = 0.8737
0%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Nominal Aperture( μm)
100% RETAINED PASSED
90% Log. (RETAINED) Log. (PASSED)

80%
Cummulative weight (%)

70%
60%
y = 0.3251ln(x) - 2.1558
50% R² = 0.9267
40%
2.14 30%
20%
y = -0.683ln(x) + 5.4939
10%
R² = 0.8737
0%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Nominal Aperture( μm)

Fig. (3): Sieve analysis graph of cumulative weight percentage (retained and
passed) of maize seeds against the Nominal aperture from the designed machine.
492 DESIGN AND EVALUATE OF A SMALL HAMMER MILL

Feed Sieve analysis graph of cumulative weight percentage

Rate (retained and passed)

(kg/min)
100% RETAINED PASSED
90% Log. (RETAINED) Log. (PASSED)
80%
Cummulative weight (%)

70%
60%
50% y = 0.3338ln(x) - 2.2117
R² = 0.9323
40%
2
30%
20% y = -0.685ln(x) + 5.5003
10% R² = 0.8851
0%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Nominal Aperture( μm)
100% RETAINED PASSED
90%
Log. (RETAINED) Log. (PASSED)
80%
Cummulative weight (%)

70%
60%
y = 0.3508ln(x) - 2.322
50% R² = 0.9332
40%
2.07
30%
20%
10% y = -0.688ln(x) + 5.5194
R² = 0.8935
0%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Nominal Aperture( μm)
100% RETAINED PASSED
90% Log. (RETAINED) Log. (PASSED)
Cummulative weight (%)

80%
70%
60%
y = 0.3251ln(x) - 2.1558
50%
R² = 0.9267
40%
30%
20%
2.14 y = -0.683ln(x) + 5.4939
10%
0%
R² = 0.8737
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Nominal Aperture( μm)

Fig. (4): Sieve analysis graph of cumulative weight percentage retained and
passed of broad bean seeds against the Nominal aperture from the designed machine
MOHAMED, T. H. , et al. 493

From Fig. (4), the percentage of cumulative weight of broad bean at feed rate
2.14 kg/min passed and the percentage cumulative retained against nominal aperture
(sieve size), it realized the percentage of cumulative passed curve intercept the
percentage cumulative retained curve in point of (1900 µm , the passed cumulative
weight was 65% and retained cumulative weight was 35%).
From Figs. (3 and 4), the relation between nominal aperture and the cumulative
weight (%) data were analyzed to give the best fit relation which was found to obey a
logarithmic function of the form:-
𝐶𝑤 = 𝐴 𝑙𝑛(𝑁𝑎 ) + 𝐵……………………………………………………………………………(18)
Where,
𝐂𝐰 = Cumulative weight, (%);
𝐍𝐚 = Nominal aperture,𝛍𝐦 (>0);
A and B = Constants.
Table (2) showed the values of the equation constants and 𝑹𝟐 .

Table (2) : Values of the equation constants and 𝑹𝟐 for the relation between Retained
cumulative weight ,passed cumulative weight and nominal aperture.
Item Item value

Retained cumulative weight Passed cumulative weight


Maize seeds Broad bean seeds Maize seeds Broad bean seeds

A 0.728 0.729 -0.468 -0.520


B 5.788 5.789 -3.117 -3.460
𝑹𝟐 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.86

CONCLUSION

The obtained results can be summarized as follows:-


1-The designed machine can be manufactured locally with available material available
in the local market.
2- The designed machine crushing efficiency were (93.00%, 93.70% and 94.40%)
respectively. Meanwhile, the losses were (7.00%, 6.30% and 5.60%) respectively.
The results with the broad bean 13 % moisture content with feed rate of (1.92, 2.03
and 2.09 )kg/min, the crushing efficiency were (92.75%, 93.60% and
93.71%)respectively. Meanwhile, the losses were (7.25%, 6.40% and 6.29%)
respectively
3- The study indicated the relations between cumulative passed and retained
materials. The results showed that the passed cumulative weight were 60% and 65%
for maize and broad bean respectively.
494 DESIGN AND EVALUATE OF A SMALL HAMMER MILL

The following conclusions and recommendations can be drawn:-


1- The design machine is suitable for both laboratory and commercial purposes. From
the design consideration and analysis, portability, reliability, safety, and
serviceability were given due consideration.
2- The machine appears to be capable to crush other material such as corn stack
and rice straw with a meaningful crushing capacity.
3- The fabricated machine is suitable for both laboratory and commercial use for small
scale animal producers.

REFERENCES

1. Annoussamy, M.; G. Richard; S. Recous, and J. Guerif. 2000. Change in


mechanical properties of wheat straw due to decomposition and moisture.
Applied Engineering in Agriculture 16(6): 657-664.
2. Balk, W.A. 1964. Energy requirements for dehydrating and pelleting coastal
bermudagrass. Trans. of The ASAE 4:349-351;355.
3. Ebling, J.M., and B.M. Jenkins. 1985. Physical and chemical properties of
biomass fuels. Trans. of The ASAE 28(3):898-902.
4. Flavel, M.D., and H.W. Rimmer. 1981. Particle Breakage in an impact Crushing
Environment. pp.20.
5. Hall A.S; A.R Holowenko, and H.G Laughlin .1980. Theory and Problems of
Machine Design, Schaum’s Series. McGraw. Hill Book Co; New York, U.S.A.
6. Hall, C.W., and D.C. Davis. 1979. Processing Equipment for Agricultural
Products. The AVI Publishing Company, Inc.
7. Hauhouot, M.; J.B. Solie; G.H. Brusewitz, and T.F. Peeper. 1997. Roller and
hammer milling cheat (brooms secalinus) to reduce germination as an
alternative to herbicides. Paper No. 971002, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
8. Hill B., and DA. Pulkinen. 1988. A study of the factors affecting pellet durability
and pelleting efficiency in the production of dehydrated alfalfa pellets. A
Special Report. Saskatchewan Dehydrators Association, Tisdale, SK, Canada.
9. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/belt-transmission-power-efficciency-
inAgriculture 16(6): 657-664. d_1378.html.
10. Iwaasa, A.D.; K.A. Beauchemin; J. G. Buchanan-Smith, and S.N.Acharya.1995.
Assessment of stem shearing force for three alfalfa cultivars grown under
dryland and irrigated conditions. Canadian J. Animal Science 75(1):177-179.
11. Lopo, P. 2002. The right grinding solution for you: roll, horizontal or vertical.
Feed Management 53(3):23-26.
MOHAMED, T. H. , et al. 495

12. Mani, S.; L.G. Tabil, and S. Sokhansanj. 2002. Grinding performance and
physical properties of selected biomass. Paper No. 026175, ASAE, St. Joseph,
MI.
13. Marcotte, D.; P. Savoie; D. Hamel, and L. P. Vezina. 2002. A mobile extractor
for alfalfa fractionation. Paper No. 021070, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
14. O’Dogherty, M.J.; J.A. Huber; J. Dyson, and C. J. Marshall. 1995. A study of
the physical and mechanical properties of wheat straw. J. Agricultural
Engineering Research 62(2):133-142.
15. Patton ,E.S .1980. Mechanism Design Analysis. Prentice Hall of India Private
Ltd. pelleting efficiency in the production of dehydrated alfalfa pellets. A
Special Report.
16. Prince, R.P.; D.D. Wolf, and J.W. Bartok. 1968. Mechanical properties of corn
stalks. Research Report 29, The University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut.
17. Robert, P. 1985. Machine Devices and Components Illustrated Sourcebook,
McGraw-Hill Education; 1 edition.
18. Samson P.; P.Duxbury; M.Drisdelle, and C. Lapointe. 2000. Assessment of
pelletized biofuels. Available at: http://reap.ca/Reports/pelletaug2000.html.
19. Scholten R.L., and R.R. McEllhiney. 1985. The effects of prebreaking in
hammer mill particle size reduction. Paper No. 85-3542, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
20. Spolt, M.F. 1988. Design of Machines Element, 6 th ed. Prentice Hall, New
Delhi, India.
21. Vigneault, C.; T.M. Rothwell, and G. Bourgeois. 1992. Hammer mill grinding
rate and energy requirements for thin and conventional hammer. Canadian
Agricultural Engineering 34(2):203-205.
22. Yang, W.; S. Sokhansanj; W.J. Crerar, and S. Rohani. 1996. Size and shape
related characteristics of alfalfa grind. Canadian Agricultural Engineering
38(3):201- 205.
‫‪496‬‬ ‫‪DESIGN AND EVALUATE OF A SMALL HAMMER MILL‬‬

‫تصميم وتقييم مجرشة صغيرة‬

‫طارق حسين على محمد ‪ ,‬حنفي عبدالمنعم رضوان ‪,‬‬


‫احمد اسامه محمد االشهب ‪ ,‬محمد ياسر عدلى‬

‫معهد بحوث الهندسة الزراعية ‪ ,‬مركز البحوث الزراعية ‪ ,‬دقى ‪ ,‬جيزة‬

‫تعتبر زياده الحجم والكثافة المنخفضة للكتلة الحيوية المنتجة زراعيا عائقا كبيرا الستخدامها‬
‫فى كثير من العمليات مثل إنتاج االعالف الحيوانيه والوقود الحيوى‪ .‬وتزيد الكثافة المنخفضة للكتلة‬
‫الحيوية من تكاليف النقل وتسبب انخفاض معدالت أداء معدات التعامل معها‪ .‬وتعتبر عمليات تقليل حجم‬
‫الكتله الحيويه الى الحجم المناسب بمثابه الخطوة األولى في االستخدام‪ .‬والهدف من هذا البحث تصميم‬
‫وتصنيع وتقييم مجرشه تعمل بالمطارق بخامات محليه والتي لديها القدرة على اإلنتاج على نطاق صغير‬
‫الستخدامها فى المعامل لجرش العينات او لصغارمربى الثروه الحيوانيه على السواء‪,‬حيث تكلف‬
‫المجارش المستورده الكثير من العمالت الصعبه وتعانى من نقص قطع الغيار االستيرادية‪ .‬واستند‬
‫التصميم النظري على مبدأ التصميم من خالل التحليل‪ .‬وكانت المنهجية المتبعة هي فحص العيوب‬
‫الشائعه فى المجارش ذات المطرقة التقليدية وتقديم الحلول‪ .‬وتم تصميم المجرشه الصغيرة ذات‬
‫المطارق و تصنيعها من مواد متوفرة محليا الستعمالها فى جرش الحبوب مثل حبوب الذرة وبذورالفول‬
‫وغيرها من المواد مثل قش األرز‪ ،‬وحطب القطن وذلك الي حجم صغير‪ .‬وتتم عملية الجرش عن طريق‬
‫استخدام مجموعة من المطارق تدور فى غرفة الجرش والتى تقوم بجرش المواد الى جسيمات صغيرة‬
‫بما يكفي لتمر من خالل فتحات الغربال الذى تم وضعه تحت غرفة الجرش والذي يمكن استبداله‬
‫للحصول علي احجام تتراوح ما بين ‪ 600‬ميكرومتر إلى ‪ 2500‬ميكرومتر‪ .‬وبناءا على القدره‬
‫المستخدمه و السرعه الدورانيه للعمود المركب عليه المطارق والتى بلغت ‪ 2000‬لفه‪/‬د والذي يدار‬
‫بمحرك كهربى بقدرة (‪ )1‬كيلووات عن طريق سير الى وحده الجرش كانت مناسبة للتشغيل على نحو‬
‫فعال‪ .‬وأظهرت النتائج أن أقصى كفاءة جرش كانت ‪ .٪94.7‬كما أظهرت النتائج وجود عالقة رياضيه‬
‫بين فتحة الغربال المستخدم فى التقييم)‪ (Na‬والوزن التراكمي) ‪ (Cw‬يمكن ان تصاغ فى معادله تجريبيه‬
‫لوغاريتميه فى صورة ‪ A( ، Cw (%) = A ln(Na) + B‬و‪ = ) B‬ثابت‪.‬‬