Project Report on Field testing and performance evaluation of axial flow combine harvester in paddy crop

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF AXIAL

FLOW COMBINE HARVESTER IN PADDY CROP

Project Report

MADHURI GUPTA

(2011AE12BIV)

MOIN KHAN

(2011AE17BIV)

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY

(Agricultural Engineering)

DEPARTMENT OF FARM MACHINERY & POWER

ENGINEERING

College of Agricultural Engineering & Technology

CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar

May 2015

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the work described in this report was carried out by us as part of the

project courses (FMPE 411 & FMPE 412) and that no part of the work reported has been

submitted for any other programme of study. It is further certified that the authors are solely

responsible for the different statements/conclusions mentioned in this report.

Date:

Place:

Madhuri Gupta Moin Khan

2011AE12BIV 2011AE17BIV

Dedicated to our

Alma mater

ABSTRACT

In this study, Daedong DSM72 which is a head feed axial flow combine harvester was

selected for performance evaluation in paddy field. The combine was tested on two scented

and two non-scented varieties of paddy. All the four varieties were taken at different moisture

contents. The study was also carried outforcomparing the cost of operation and saving in the

cost over manual harvesting.The grain losses were found to be minimum at a forward speed

of 4.0 km/h and grain moisture content of 18%. The threshing cylinder speed was 600 rpm.

The grain losses namely pre-harvest loss, collectable loss and non-collectable loss were

observed to be 1.40%, 0.86% and 0.79% respectively with a total grain loss of 3.05%. Width

of cutterbar of the machine was measured to be 1.48m. Threshing and cleaning efficiency

were calculated as 91.56% and 98.46% respectively. The fuel consumption when the combine

was operated at straw chopping mode was 10 l/h.The total operating cost of the combine

harvester was calculated to be 1652.25 Rs/h with a break-even point occurring at 341h/year

and a payback period of 4.3 years.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is a great pleasure for us to acknowledge the assistance and contributions of all the

people who helped us to carry out this project. This work would not have been possible

without the dedicated assistance of those individuals.

We take this opportunity to express our profound gratitude and deep regards to our

project advisors Dr. Mrs. Vijaya Rani, Head and Er. S. Mukesh Jain, Asst. Agricultural

Engineer, Department of Farm Machinery & Power Engineering, College of Agricultural

Engineering & Technology, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, for their exemplary

guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement throughout the course of this project. Their

generous help from arranging vehicle for everyday field visits to suggesting solutions for

overcoming various problems faced during calculations and deduction of test results has truly

been a cornerstone in the completion of this project. The help and guidance given by them

time to time shall carry us a long way in the journey of life on which we are about to embark.

We also take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to Er. Anil Saroha,

Asst. Professor, Department of Farm Machinery & Power Engineering, College of

Agricultural Engineering & Technology, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, for his

cordial support, valuable information and guidance at every step, which helped us in

completing this task through various stages. Without his cooperation this project would not

have been completed. Weare grateful for his cooperation during the period of our project

work.

We are equally obliged to Dr. A.K.Goel, Dean, College of Agricultural Engineering

& Technology, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, for providing the facilities for

the study.

It is our immense pleasure to express our heartiest reverence to Dr. N.K. Bansal,

Professor, Department of Farm Machinery & Power Engineering, College of Agricultural

Engineering & Technology, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, and other staff

members of the department for their versatile advice,guidance and constant cooperation

throughout this project work.

We wish to acknowledge our most sincere thanks to Mr. Ram Chander, Technician

of Department of Farm Machinery & Power Engineering, for sparing his precious time for

accompanying us to the field and helping us with the data collection. There was not a single

time he said “No” to any favour we asked for, anytime through the whole year. He truly has

been a source of immense help for us throughout the project.

We are extremely thankful to Mr. Ingole Om Avdhut, Student, M.tech, 2nd

year, and

Ms. Pooja, Student, B.tech, 4th

year for their constant help during the completion of various

tasks performed during the project and all other friends of our department who helped us with

the collection of data at the field.

We are highly grateful to our parents for their constant motivation and support. No

words are enough to describe their efforts in building our educational career and our all-round

development.

Finally, we would like to thank every individual (who we have not mentioned in

names above) who gave us even slightest of support to make this project work a success.

Date:

Place:

Madhuri Gupta Moin Khan

2011AE12BIV 2011AE17BIV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Title Page

ABSTRACT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

1 Introduction

1.1 General background

1.2 Justification

1.3 Objectives

1

1

4

4

2 Review of Literature

2.1 Machine performance

2.2 Economics

5

5

8

3 Material and Methods

3.1 Area of study

3.2 Selection of combine harvester

3.3 Material

3.4 Methodology

10

10

10

10

11

4 Results and Discussion

4.1 Analysis of Breakeven Point and Payback Period

23

27

5 Summary and Conclusions 28

REFERENCES 29

LIST OF TABLES 31

LIST OF FIGURES 32

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 33

LIST OF SYMBOLS 34

APPENDIX-A 35

APPENDIX- B 36

APPENDIX-C 37

APPENDIX- D 38

BIODATA 39

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

This chapter presents a general idea about the status of paddy production at national and

global levels, traditional approach towards paddy harvesting, need for adoption of farm

mechanization, introduction to combine harvesters, specifically axial flow, head feed type of

combine harvesters, reasons behind the popularity of such combines, advantages of axial-flow

combine harvesters over conventional type, and the objectives of this project study.

1.1 General background

Combine harvesters appeared on the Indian Agricultural scene in mid-sixties coincident

with the green revolution. These machines are increasingly becoming popular among the farmers

due to risk of weather hazards as well as time and labour constraints during harvesting seasons.

These machines are now gaining popularity particularly in belts of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar

Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan and are used for harvesting of wheat and paddy crops.

Paddy occupies a pivotal place in world as well as in Indian agriculture and is the staple

food for more than 70 percent of country’s population. The area under paddy cultivation in India

is around 42 million ha, which is largest in the world against total area of 150 million ha. The

total rice production of the world is 530 million tones out of which 85 million tones are produced

in India. The small states of Punjab and Haryana, often referred to as the “Food Bowl” of the

country, produce 50 percent of the national rice production (Dhillon et al., 2010). In Haryana,

rice was grown over an area of 1.21 million ha with total production of 3.29 million tones with

productivity of 3044 kg/ha during 2011-12 (Anonymous, 2012).There are about 7200 combine

harvesters in Punjab during 1998 d tentative estimate show that about 87.2 percent area under

paddy is harvested by combines (Khurana et al., 2002).

In paddy cultivation, transplanting, harvesting and threshing are the three major labour

intensive operations. Harvesting and threshing are the most important operations in the entire

range of field operations, which are laborious involving human drudgery and requires about 150-

200 man-hrs/ha for harvesting of paddy alone (Veerangouda et al., 2010). The paucity of labour

2

force is forcing the farmers to go for crops, which are more remunerative and less labour

intensive, thus affecting the paddy production.

Most of the combine harvesters currently used in India employ rasp-bar or spike tooth

type longitudinal drum and straw walker. The conventional tangential threshing unit threshes

mostly by impact. Under good conditions grain separation at the concave can be as high as 90%.

The remaining grains are separated from material other than grain (MOG) by straw walkers.

Separation efficiency of straw walkers reduces exponentially with increasing MOG throughput

because the straw layer cannot be loosened enough and grains get caught in straw mat. Here

remedy is reduction in cylinder to concave clearance and after-effects are aggressive threshing

action. The aggressive threshing leads to higher percentage of visible and invisible grain damage

particularly in paddy since the grain is covered in shell. The invisible damage caused to the grain

is reflected in reduced recovery while milling. In this situation, axial flow combines serve a

better option.

In axial flow threshing cylinder, crop advances through the threshing mechanism in a

direction generally parallel to the axis of rotor in contrast to the crop passing in the direction

generally passing the direction perpendicular to a conventional threshing cylinder.

(a) Axial flow (b) Conventional

Fig. 1.1 Crop flow in axial flow and conventional type threshing cylinder

In axial flow cylinder mainly loop type thresher cylinder is used. The rotor threshes the

grain by combination of rubbing, impact and centrifugal action as the crop passes repeatedly.

Generally it takes more than three turns before being ejected out as compared to tangential

cylinder in which whole of threshing is to be done in 120-150˚ rotation of threshing cylinder

(Dogra et al., 2011). The repeated passes over the threshing components provide more thorough

and at the same time more gentle threshing action. Since the retention time of cropin threshing

drum is also more and threshing is less aggressive as compared to tangential threshing drums.

3

Another major advantage of axial flow combines over conventional combines is in terms of

separation loss. Principal separating force is centrifugal action in rotary separators, as compared

to gravity only with straw walkers. The centrifugal force caused by the rotation of the straw mat

together with the rotor can be 50-100 times that of gravity thus leaving minimal chances of grain

remaining stuck in the straw mat. Therefore the grain loss (Fig. 1.2) of an axial flow rotor

approaches a linear function with the increase on throughput whereas for conventional combines

it approaches an exponential function (DePauw 1977).

Fig 1.2 Grain loss of axial flow combine harvester

According to feeding way, paddy combine harvester can be divided in to two types- whole feed

combine and head feed combine, both combines are different in nature in different handling way

of paddy straw. For head feed combine only the head parts are involves in the threshing device.

The head feed combine also overcome the problem of straw. Head feed type of machine has an

excellent performance in threshing and separating grains, even harvesting heavily lodged paddy.

It can process paddy straw in different ways, windrow them in an orderly manner or cut them in

even length and spread them on ground. The main drawback of this model is that it is too

expensive for farmer. In addition, the pick-up device for lodged crops may cause grain damage

and losses, amounting to 5% in the later harvesting period. It is suitable for economically

developed area, area where government subsidies are available, and area where crop lodging

occurs frequently.

4

1.2 Justification

Traditionally, paddy is harvested by manual labour using sickles/reaper followed by threshing

manually, with animal trampling or stationary power thresher. Due to the non-availability of

labourers, crop harvesting is often delayed which exposes the crop to vagaries of nature. Timely

harvesting is utmost important, as delayed harvesting leads to a considerable loss of grain and

straw owing to over maturity resulting in loss of grains by shattering and also hampers the seed

bed preparation and sowing operations for the next crop.

Harvesting and threshing operations may be done separately or in "one go" depending upon the

availability of equipment. Fast and efficient method of harvesting is the immediate need of the

farmers. At such stage, when timeliness of harvesting and threshing operations is the main

criterion, the use of combine harvesters for harvesting of crop should be the most appropriate.

Nowadays, combine harvesters are becoming popular among farmers as it performs cutting,

threshing and winnowing operations simultaneously thus saving the time, drudgery and labour

involved in these operations.

A number of researchers have compared the performance of conventional and axial combine

harvesters. In general it was expressed by various authors that axial flow threshing/ separating

process is gentle and thorough. There was a reduction in grain damage and loss of grain, which

justifies the use of axial-flow combine harvesters for increased production and productivity of

paddy crop.

1.2 Objectives

Taking all the above mentioned facts into consideration, the present project entitled

“Performance evaluation of axial flow combine harvester in paddy crop” is undertaken with

following objectives.

1. Testing and performance evaluation of axial flow combine harvester in paddy crop.

2. Study economics of combine harvester in comparison to manual harvesting of paddy.

5

Chapter 2

Review of Literature

Numerous researches have been done for the testing and performance evaluation of

combine harvesters and its economic feasibility. This chapter gives a brief review of some of the

important studies that have been conducted in India and abroad in this regard.

2.1 Machine Performance

Veerangouda et al. (2010) conducted a study for Performance Evaluation of Tractor

Operated Combine Harvester. The studies were also conducted for comparing the cost of

operation and saving in the cost over manual harvesting. The average value of effective field

capacity of the machine was found to be from 0.64 to 0.81 ha/h with field efficiency of 67.02 to

76.83 per cent. The harvesting losses were in the range of 2.88 to 3.60 per cent for paddy

harvesting. The cost of operation was lesser for tractor operated combine harvester as compared

to manual method by 57.65 to 65.55 per cent.

Pawar et al. (2007) undertook a study to determine the field losses and cost of economics

of combine harvester and combination of self propelled vertical conveyor reaper with thresher.

The analysis of data and results obtained from the comparative evaluation of both the machines

shows that the total field loss of combine harvester i.e. 4.20% was less than the combination of

self propelled vertical conveyor reaper with thresher i.e. 10.57%. The cost of operation for

combine harvester was 817.84 Rs./ha which was less than the combination of self propelled

vertical conveyor reaper with thresher i.e. 1816.79 Rs./ha.

Alizadeh and Bagheri (2009) studied on field performance evaluation of different rice

threshing methods. The results of this research showed that regardless of type of varieties,

threshing method significantly affected percentage of quantitative and qualitative losses. Show

that the highest percentage of losses (broken, hulled grain and fissures grain) was attributed to

combine harvester (used as a thresher) and the least percentage of losses were attributed to power

tiller operated thresher. However with regards to low threshing capacity of power tiller operated

6

thresher (5.54 h/ton), axial flow thresher is recommended in order to achieve optimum threshing

capacity and least losses.

Chhabra (1975) reported that there was a decrease in the visible damage with increase in

moisture content from 16.03 to 27.45% at all level of impact energy at low moisture the paddy

grain became more brittle and surface damage took place easily.

Dogra et al. (2010)compared that the grain losses in conventional and axial-flow

combine harvesters in paddy and found that majority of combine harvesters tested at testing

institutes qualify these conditions when operated under standard conditions. But standard

conditions seldom exist at framers’ field. Majority of these do not qualify the 2.5% processing

loss norm at farmers’ fields. Percentage of fissured grains in combine harvested paddy ranged

from 16–32%. There was approximately 0.5% lower processing loss and 1% lower broken grains

in axial flow combine harvesters as compared to conventional combine harvesters. Particularly

broken grains were reduced by 2.5 to 5 times. If the trend remains the same for fissured grains

and milling losses, more than 5% grains can be saved at the cost of additional fuel burnt by the

slightly costlier axial flow combine harvesters.

Hassani et al. (2011) studied that reduction of losses due to cutting platform of combine

which comprises more than 50% of the entire harvesting losses, is one of the main and principle

measures in decreasing the combine losses. The JD 1165 combine harvester manufactured by

ICM. Company is equipped with variable pulley and belt mechanism for ground speed, which

causes lots of vibration and increases the losses and depreciation of the machine. In this study the

amount of losses of JD 1165 harvester combine equipped with variable pulley and belt

mechanism has tested and investigated. For this purpose a typical JD 1165 combine was selected

and adjusted for various functional specifications. Then in Markazi province a field with flat land

was chosen, in which 307020 Shahriar and Bekras varieties planted in water farm and in seven

repetitions so that the moisture of grains ranged between 8 to 12% the research was carried out.

As consequences demonstrated, grain losses induced from platform of the investigated combine

gained 1.29% and losses at the back of the combine was 0.96% on average in seven repetitions.

In addition, the most amounts of damaged grains achieved 10.8% at the speed of 850 rpm for the

cylinder.

Somachai and Winit (2011) determined the effects of operating factors of axial flow rice

combine Harvester on grain breakage. In operating the combine harvesters, if breakage has to be

7

kept lower that 0.5%, the rotor speed should not exceed 19 m/sec and harvesting should be done

when the grain moisture content is less than 20%- wb.

Chuan-udam and Chinsuwan (2011) have determined the effects of operating factors of

axial flow rice combine harvester on grain breakage. In operating the combine harvester, if

breakage has to be kept lower that 0.5%, the rotor speed should not exceed 19 m/sec and

harvesting should be done when the grain moisture content is not less than 20 % on the wb.

Alizadeh and Allameh (2013) have worked on evaluating rice losses in various

harvesting practices. Quantitative and qualitative losses constituted 53.00 and 46.98% of total

harvest loss in indirect harvesting on average, while they were 79.51 and 20.47% in direct

harvesting on average, respectively. Total harvest loss was 4.88% in direct harvesting whereas it

was 2.94% in direct method which declined 39.75%.

Wrubleski and Smith (1980) found that in wheat separation losses with axial flow

cylinders and separation units increased much less rapidly with feed rate than losses from

walkers or a rotary drum.

Baruah and Panesar (2004) studied on development of component models for a

combine harvester. The several system parameters were identified in the models of power

requirements by the processes of combine harvester. Selection of optimal harvesting schedule

and optimal design parameter with an aim to reduce the energy requirement of combine harvester

operation would be the possible uses of the models.

Ghadge (2004) studied to estimate the field losses of Swaraj 8100 combine harvester for

wheat crop. The combine harvester gave threshing efficiency of 96% and cleaning efficiency of

94%. This indicated that some improvement was needed in the threshing unit as well as in the

cleaning unit. Rack loss and Shoe loss were within limit less than 2%.

Craessaerts et al. (2007) studied on a genetic input selection methodology for

identification of the cleaning process on a combine harvester, Part I: Selection of relevant input

variables for identification of the sieve losses. In this study, a multivariate input selection

methodology is presented to select the most valuable input variables to predict the sieve losses

on a conventional combine harvester. In a first step, extra sensors were placed on the combine

harvester in order to extract information about the cleaning section performance. It was found

that the sieve losses are affected in a non-linear manner by differences in the pressure profile of

the cleaning section and the upper sieve cleaning.

8

Nyberg (1964) reported that walker losses in wheat at a given grain/non-grain feed rate

were reduced by about head in one comparison when the grain/non-grain ratio was increased

from 0.84 to 1.04.

Neal and Cooper (1970) compared a cross- flow rasp-bar cylinder and open grate

concave with a spike tooth cylinder and concave in regard to seed separation through the

concave grate using rice in laboratory tests and found in laboratory tests with rice (which

generally has tough, high moisture straw) that the percentage separation through the concave

grade with a cross-flow rasp-bar cylinder was reduced from 72% to 63% when the non grain feed

rate was doubled.

Reed and Zoerb (1970) conducted a comprehensive series of tests at the University of

Saskatchewan to determine the effects of walker crank speed, crank throw, grain/non-grain ratio,

feed rate and other factors upon the efficiency of grain separation with straw walkers.

Mishra and Bisht (1974) observed a variety that there was reduction in total loss with

increase in grain moisture from 13.95 to 22.53%. However, after 22.53% moisture there was

again an increase in loss percent.

2.2 Economics

Singh (1986) on the basis of a sample of 35 combine harvester studied that the

economics of combine harvesters in Punjab brought out that the average area covered by

combine harvester of small size was 192.1 acres of wheat and 173.6 acres of paddy. With an

average rate of Rs. 210 per acre, gross return of Rs. 76, 203.74 was estimated while the annual

fixed and operating cost worked out to Rs. 48538.90 and a net profit of Rs. 27664.84 during

1984-85.

Sivaswami and Bhaskar (2004) reported that the losses due to straw damage were

compensated by the additional recovery of paddy up to 4% which otherwise may had lost due to

manual shattering losses.

Thakur and Khura (2004) have determined the economics of custom hiring of combine

harvester in North-Western Indo-Gangetic plains of India. About 90% of combine harvesters on

the farms were of local made. The area of coverage of combine harvester was about 149.81 ha in

Kharif season and 261.81 ha in Rabi season. Combine owners reported that the business of

combines on custom hiring had become highly competitive.

9

Dogra et al. (2007) studied the economics of harvesting and threshing of wheat and

paddy in Northern India. The overall combining intensity for the studied sample worked out to

be 43.04 and 58.07% for wheat and paddy respectively.

Sharanakumar et al. (2011)assessed the post harvest losses and techno-economic

feasibility of using combine harvester (Escorts Claas-crop Tiger) was carried out by determining

pre and post harvest losses, timeliness of harvesting field capacity, fuel consumption, frequency

of repair/maintenance and operating cost of machine. The results revealed that the rice combine

harvester had an average post harvest losses of about 2.96% of rice yield and grain breakage

losses (1.50%) were bit less. The machine was able to harvest 1 to 1.2 acres in an hour. The cost

of operational in conventional harvesting was 2.28 times more and costs about Rs 550/acre. The

payback period was found to be less than one year, if the machine could harvest 2500 acre per

year.

10

Chapter 3

Material and Methods

Various material and a systematic methodology have been adopted for the completion of

this project study. This chapter deals with the description of tools and equipment used and

methodology adopted for field evaluation and economics of self-propelled combine harvester in

comparison to traditional method of harvesting and threshing of paddy crop.

3.1 Area of study

A farmer’s field at village Himmatpura (Tohana) in Fatehabad district of Haryana state

was selected for undertaking the performance evaluation of combine harvester.

3.2 Selection of combine harvester

The Daedong combine DSM72commercially available in India under Escorts name,

which is an axial-flow and head feed type combine harvester was selected for evaluating the

performance as well as economic viability. The machine was tested at the farmer’s field from

27th

October to 31st October, 2014.

3.3 Material

Table 3.1 Material and instruments used during the experiment

Measurement

Sr. No. Name of instrument Purpose

(for measurement of)

Least Count Capacity

1. Measuring tape Linear distance 1cm 50m

2. Measuring scale Linear distance 1mm 15cm

3. Weighing machine Weight of sample

0.25 gm 2 kg

0.001 gm 600 gm

4. Measuring cylinder Volume of fuel 100ml 2000 ml

11

5. Stop watch Time 0.1 sec -

6. Grain moisture meter Moisture content of grain 0.1% -

Marking

Sr. No. Material Purpose (for marking of)

7. Sighting poles Start and end points of working distance (20m)

8. Square frame 1m2

area for pre-harvest and header loss collection

9. Lime powder Array on the ground

Sample Collection

Sr. No. Material Purpose (for collection of)

10. Polythene bags Soil, straw and grain samples

11. Cloth sheets Sieve and shoe loss

3.4 Methodology

Two fields with different varieties of paddy, one scented and the other non-scented, were

harvested and the analysis done.

3.4.1 Procedure for test

i. A test run of 20m was selected from the test plot and marked with sighting poles.

Fig. 3.1 Marking of test run (20m)with sighting poles

12

ii. Pre-harvest losses at three different places randomly selected having an area of 1m2 were

determined. The area was marked with a square frame (area 1m2) and lime powder. All

the loose grains, complete and incomplete ear-heads fallen in the marked area before the

machine has run over it were picked up manually without undue vibrating the plants and

analyzed for determining the pre-harvest losses in kg/ha.

Fig. 3.2 Collection of pre-harvest losses Fig. 3.3 Pre-harvest loss grain sample

iii. To collect the straw and chaff leaving the machine, two rolls of cloth with appropriate

dimensions were rolled over on specially attached rollers beneath the rear of the machine,

so that as it unrolls, one sheet catches the afflux from the straw outlet and the other from

the sieve.

Fig. 3.4 Cloth being rolled over on the roller behind combine

iv. Arrangement for collection of samples was made as per Fig. 3.5.

Where,

LP = Length of preliminary run

Lm = Length of test run

13

A = Observer for signal

B, C = Observers for collection of straw sample

D, E = Observers for collection of sieve sample

F = Observer for sample of grain outlet

G = Combine operator

Fig. 3.5 Arrangement for field testing of combine harvester

v. The combine was operated and the time taken by the machine to cover the test run was

recorded and the grain samples at main outlet and secondary outlet were collected. The

straw and chaff for the test run were collected from the sheets and rest of the material

discarded.

Fig. 3.6 Recording time taken to cover the test run Fig. 3.7 Collection of grain sample from the

main outlet

14

Fig. 3.8 Collection of straw on cloth sheet Fig. 3.9 Discarding other material from chaff

vi. The loose grains, and complete & incomplete ear-heads fallen on the marked area, where

the pre-harvest losses were determined, were picked up manually and analyzed for

determining header loss in kg/ha. During test, the marked area was protected by cloth.

Fig. 3.10 Marked area after combine operation and collection of header loss grains

vii. Soil and straw samples were taken to determine moisture content.

Fig. 3.11 Collection of soil sample Fig. 3.12 Weighing of soil sample

15

Fig.3.13 Collection and weighing of straw sample Fig. 3.14 A tachometer

viii. The number of rpm of the threshing cylinder was measured with the help of tachometer.

3.4.2 Observations to be recorded during or after the test:

i. Area covered

ii. Time of operation

iii. Time for any stoppage

iv. Time loss in turning

v. Average working width

vi. Fuel consumed

vii. Cylinder rpm

3.4.3 Sample analysis:

Three samples of 100gm each from the main outlet were taken and analyzed for threshed,

unthreshed, broken and rubbish content. Similarly, complete samples for the test run from straw

and sieve outlets were analyzed.

3.4.4 Data analysis

The data obtained during field test and sample analysis was used for analysis and

following parameters were obtained.

i. Crop and Field parameters:

1. Moisture content of grain, % (w.b.)

The moisture content of grains was calculated using grain moisture meter.

2. Moisture content of straw, % (w.b.)

16

Straw samples from both fields were collected and moisture content was determined by oven

drying method. Samples were placed in oven for 24 h and weights of dried samples were taken.

Temperature of 450 C was maintained in oven. The moisture content on wet basis was

determined by the formula given below:

Mw = W − WdW

Where,

Mw = Moisture content on wet basis, %

W = Weight of sample, g

Wd = Weight of dry sample, g

3. Soil moisture content, % (w.b.)

Soil samples from both fields were collected using core-cutter and moisture content was

determined in the same way as above. In case of soil, a temperature of 1050 C was maintained in

the oven.

4. Bulk density, g/cc

The weight of sample and the volume of cylinder (core-cutter) were recorded and the bulk

density of soil was determined by following formula: ρ = MV

Where,

ρ = Bulk density, g/cm3

M = Total mass of sample, g

V = Total volume of sample, cm3

ii. Performance parameters:

1. Rate of work, ha/h = area covered × .time

2. Width of cutter bar, m

The width of cutter bar was determined using measuring tape.

17

3. Speed of operation, km/h

The speed of operation was determined in test plots by putting two ranging rods 20m apart (A &

B). The time taken to travel the distance of 20m was recorded with the help of stopwatch. The

speed was calculated in km/hr as given below: S = T

Where,

S = Speed of operation, km/h

T = Time needed to cover 20 m distance, sec

4. Theoretical field capacity, ha/h TFC = S × W

Where,

TFC = Theoretical field capacity, ha/h

S = Average speed of travel, km/h

W = Average working width of equipment, m

5. Effective field capacity, ha/h

The actual operating time along with time lost for every event such as turning loading, unloading

and adjustment were recorded for completion of the harvesting test area. The effective field

capacity was calculated as follows: – EFC = ATP + T1

Where,

EFC = Effective field capacity, ha/h

A = Area covered, ha

TP = Productive time, h

T1 = Non productive time(Time lost for turning, loading and adjustment excluding

refueling and machine trouble), h

6. Field efficiency, %

It was calculated as follows from the field test data.

18

Ef = EFCTFC ×

Where,

Ef = Field efficiency, %

TFC = Theoretical field capacity, ha/h

EFC = Effective field capacity, ha/h

7. Fuel consumption, l/h

For measuring the fuel consumption of combine harvester its fuel tank was filled to full capacity

before and after the test. The amount of refueling required after the test was the fuel consumption

for that particular operation and time, which was measured by a measuring cylinder. While

filling up the tank, careful attention was paid to keep the tank horizontal and not to leave empty

space in the tank for checking proper level of the tank sprit level was used.

8. Net grain output

Net grain output, kg/ha = × Weight of grain sampleArea covered in m run

Net grain output, kg/h = . × Weight of grain sampleAvg. time for m length

9.Grain throughput

Grain throughput, kg/ha = × total wt. of grainArea covered in m run

Grain throughput, kg/h = Grain throughput kg ha⁄ × Rate of work ha/h

10.Straw throughput

Straw throughput (kg/ha) = × total wt. of strawArea covered in m run

Straw throughput (kg/h)

19

= Straw throughput kg ha⁄ × Rate of work ha/h

11. Crop throughput, ton/h = � �� ℎ �ℎ ��/ℎ + � � ℎ �ℎ ��/ℎ

12. Threshing efficiency, % = Total threshed grain ×Total grain

13. Cleaning efficiency, % = Healthy threshed grain in main outlet × Wt. of grain sample

iii. Grain losses:

1. Pre-harvest loss, % = Pre harvest grain kg ha⁄ ×Total grain output kg ha⁄

2. Collectable losses, %

a) Unthreshed grains from main outlet, % = � ℎ ℎ � �� ×� � � × Grain throughput kg ha⁄

b) Broken grain from main outlet, % = Broken grain × Area covered in m × Grain throughput kg/ha

c) Total collectable losses, % = Unthreshed + Broken

3. Non collectable losses, %

a) Header loss = Cutterbar grain loss ×Grain throughput kg ha⁄

b) Straw losses

I) Threshed grains, %

20

= Healthy threshed grain × Area in m × Grain throughput kg/ha

II) Unthreshed grains, % = Unthreshed grain ×Covered in m length × Grain throughput kg/ha

III) Broken grains, % = Broken grain × Covered in m × Grain throughput kg/ha

IV) Total straw losses, % = Threshed + Unthreshed + Broken

c) Sieve losses

I) Threshed grains, % = Healthy threshed grain × Area covered in m × Grain throughput kg/ha

II) Unthreshed grains, % = Unthreshed grain ×Area covered in m × Grain throughput kg/ha

III) Broken grains, % = Broken grain × Area covered in m × Grain throughput kg/ha

IV) Total sieve losses, % = Threshed + Unthreshed + Broken Total combine loss, % = Total collectable loss + Total non collectable loss

iv. Economic parameters:

1. Cost of operation, Rs/h

a) Fixed cost

Depreciation: This cost reflects the reduction in value of a machine with use (wear) and time.

While actual depreciation would depend on the sale price of the machine after its use, on the

basis of different computational method depreciation can be estimated. The following formulae

based on straight line method are recommended. D = P − SL

21

Where,

D = Depreciation cost average per year

P = Purchase price of the machine Rs

S = Residual value of the machine taken as 10% of purchase price

L = Useful life of the machine in year

Interest: Annual charges of interest were calculated on the basis of the actual rate of interest

payable. It was taken 7% of average purchase price of the machine. A = P + S × I

Where,

A = Average purchase price, Rs/y

P = Purchase price of the machine, Rs

S = Residual value of the machine, Rs

I = Interest rate, %

Insurances, taxes, and housing cost: It was calculated as 3% of the average purchase price of

the machine.

2. Variable cost

Fuel cost: The fuel consumption depends on the size of the power unit load factor and operating

condition. The fuel cost was calculated by the following formulae:

Fuel cost (Rs/h) = Rate of fuel (Rs/l) × Fuel consumption (l/h)

Lubrication cost: The lubrication cost was computed by considering the oil consumption as

30% of the fuel consumption on the volume basis and the cost is computed by multiplying the oil

consumed (l/h) and cost of lubricants (Rs/l).

Repair and maintenance: Repair and maintenance expenditure were necessary to keep the

machine operator due to bear, part failure renewal of tires, tubes etc. the cost of machine was

highly variable it was computed @ 10% of purchase price of machine.

Wages and labor charges: These were the charges which were taken by the laborer on the basis

of work they have performed in the field. Nowadays, a laborer generally takes Rs. 500/- for

working for a day (8h).

22

2. Break-even point, h

Break-even point (BEP) is the point at which cost or expenses and revenue are equal:

there is no net loss or gain, and one has "broken even." A profit or a loss has not been made,

although opportunity costs have been "paid," and capital has received the risk-adjusted, expected

return. In the linear case the break-even point is equal to the fixed costs divided by the

contribution margin per unit.

The purpose of break-even analysis is to provide a rough indicator of the earnings impact

of a marketing activity.

T he break-even point is one of the simplest yet least used analytical tools in management.

It helps to provide a dynamic view of the relationships between sales, costs, and profits. For

example, expressing break-even sales as a percentage of actual sales can give managers a chance

to understand when to expect to break even (by linking the percent to when in the week/month

this percent of sales might occur).At breakeven point unit cost of operation of big and small

machine will be same.

B. E. P. = Fixed cost Rs/yCustom Fees Rs h⁄ − Operating Cost Rs/h

3. Payback period, years

It is the number of years it would take for an investment to return its original cost through

the annual cash revenues it generates, if the net cash revenues are constant each year the payback

period may be calculated from the equation. Payback period in capital budgeting refers to the

period of time required to recoup the funds expended in an investment, or to reach the break-

even point. P = Initial Cost Rs[Custom Fees Rs h⁄ − Operating Cost Rs h⁄ ] x Annual Usage

23

Chapter 4

Results and Discussion

The data collected during field evaluation trails were analysed to determine the field

performance parameters of the combine harvester. The machine was operated at three different

speeds i.e., 3.5 km/h, 4.0 km/h and 4.5 km/h. The average values of various crop and field

parameters, machine performance parameters are given in Table 4.1. The variations in the

effective field capacity were due to the different forward speeds of machine.

The parameters like net grain output (kg/h and kg/ha),grain throughput (kg/h and kg/ha),

and straw throughput (kg/h and kg/ha) indicate the combine harvester capacities. The data

pertaining to the average values of net grain output, grain throughput, straw output and crop

throughput are given in Table 4.2.

The total harvesting loss refers to the summation of header (cutter bar) loss,

threshing/cylinder loss, sieve losses. The combine was allowed to reach a stable operating

condition at a constant feed rate before the collections were made. The average values of total

harvesting losses are given in Table 4.3.

The average values of pre-harvest loss, threshing/ cylinder loss, header loss, sieve loss

were in the range of 0.98 to 1.40 per cent, 0.80 to 2.04 per cent, 0.34 to 0.63 per cent, 0.30 to

0.48 per cent, respectively. The average total collectable and non-collectable losses varied from

0.80 to 2.04 and 0.74 to 1.11 per cent, respectively and the average total harvesting losses were

in the range of 1.65 to 2.82 per cent.

The total cost of conventional method of harvesting, cost of harvesting by head feed axial

flow combine harvester and cost benefit ratios are presented in Tables 4.4 to 4.6. The cost of

operation with head feed axial flow combine harvester for paddy were lesser as compared to

conventional method of harvesting by 56.94per cent. Also, labour requirement for self propelled

combine harvester was 4.25 man-h/ha whereas in case of manual harvesting and threshing,

labour required was 180 man-h/ha. At the same time in combine harvested field there was gain

of biomass in the soil by management of paddy straw left over by the combine in the field.

Parameter Scented Variety Non-scented Variety

Pusa 1401 Pusa 1121 PR 118 PR 114

Crop & Field Parameters

Soil Moisture Content (%) 17.64 15.61 24.48 14.06

Bulk Density of Soil (g/cc) 1.62 1.79 1.84 1.76

Grain Moisture Content (%) 22 19 20 18

Straw Moisture Content (%) 51.09 58.85 56.51 65.87

Height of Plant (cm) 100 111.5 106 121

No. of plants per sq. m 23 24 24 25

No. of tillers per plant 22 33 44 24

Height of stubble (cm) 8.8 9.2 8.7 8.5

Performance Parameters

Speed of Operation (km/h) 3.5 4.0 4.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 3.5 4.0 4.5

Eff. Field Capacity (ha/h) 0.38 0.42 0.57 0.39 0.44 0.56 0.4 0.45 0.58 0.36 0.42 0.55

Thr. Field Capacity (ha/h) 0.52 0.53 0.67 0.518 0.53 0.67 0.52 0.53 0.67 0.518 0.53 0.67

Field Eff. (%) 73.08 79.25 85.07 75.23 83.02 83.58 76.92 84.91 86.57 69.23 79.24 82.1

Rate of work (ha/h) 0.52 0.59 0.67 0.52 0.59 0.67 0.52 0.59 0.67 0.53 0.59 0.67

Parameter Scented Variety Non-scented Variety

Pusa 1401 Pusa 1121 PR 118 PR 114

Speed of Operation (km/h) 3.5 4.0 4.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 3.5 4.0 4.5

Net Grain Output (kg/h) 2185.51 2545.80 2882.93 2132.56 2470 2806.88 2170.66 2512.8 2862 1882.80 2240 2601

Grain Throughput (Kg/ha) 4225 4300.34 4328.72 4122.64 4172.3 4214.53 4196.28 4244.59 4297.3 3533.78 3801.98 3905.41

Grain Throughput (Kg/h) 2197 2537.20 2900.24 2143.77 2461.66 2823.73 2182.07 2504.31 2879.19 1872.91 2243.17 2916.62

Straw Throughput (Kg/ha) 9506.25 9675.76 9739.61 9275.92 9387.66 9482.69 9441.65 9550.39 9668.93 7951.02 8702.69 8982.42

Straw Throughput (Kg/h) 4943.25 5708.7 6525.54 4823.48 5538.72 6353.4 4909.65 5634.7 6478.18 4214.04 5134.59 6018.22

Table 4.1 Crop & field and machine performance parameters of head feed axial flow combine harvester

Table 4.2 Head feed axial flow combine harvester capacity

Parameter Scented Variety Non-scented Variety

Pusa 1401 Pusa 1121 PR 118 PR 114

Speed of Operation (km/h) 3.5 4.0 4.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 3.5 4.0 4.5

A. Collectable loss, %

i) Unthreshed grains from main outlet, %

ii) Broken grains from main outlet, %

Total collectable loss, %

1.97

0.07

2.04

1.81

0.11

1.92

1.79

0.15

1.94

1.35

0.12

1.47

1.29

0.14

1.43

1.27

0.19

1.39

1.58

0.10

1.68

1.49

0.13

1.62

1.42

0.18

1.60

1.11

0.15

1.26

0.65

0.21

0.86

0.42

0.38

0.80

B. Non-collectable loss, %

i) Header loss, %

ii) Sieve loss, %

a) Threshed grains, %

b) Unthreshed grains, %

c) Broken grains, %

Total sieve loss, %

Total non-collectable loss, %

0.34

0.18

0.25

0.01

0.44

0.78

0.42

0.20

0.19

0.02

0.41

0.83

0.45

0.25

0.18

0.05

0.48

0.93

0.41

0.21

0.14

0.03

0.38

0.79

0.45

0.22

0.09

0.04

0.35

0.80

0.48

0.29

0.07

0.08

0.44

0.92

0.38

0.20

0.17

0.02

0.39

0.77

0.40

0.22

0.15

0.05

0.42

0.82

0.45

0.25

0.14

0.09

0.48

0.93

0.44

0.23

0.02

0.05

0.30

0.74

0.47

0.25

0.01

0.06

0.32

0.79

0.63

0.35

0.01

0.12

0.48

1.11

Total harvesting loss (sum of collectable and non-collectable loss), % 2.82 2.75 2.87 2.26 2.24 2.31 2.45 2.44 2.533 2.00 1.65 1.91

Pre-harvest Loss (%) 0.98 0.99 0.99 1.13 1.12 1.14 1.09 1.09 1.10 1.39 1.40 1.39

Cleaning Eff. (%) 97.45 97.56 97.52 98.35 98.24 98.18 97.92 97.92 97.87 97.52 98.35 98.46

Threshing Eff. (%) 77.4 80.93 79.8 86.03 88.32 87.16 82.67 82.35 80.04 92.25 92.58 91.56

Conventional Method Cost (Rs/ha)

Cutting, bundling and loading the crop into tractor 4000

Threshing by impact 3000

Winnowing charges (fan hiring + labour) 2000

Loss 2400

Total 11400

Table 4.3Total harvesting losses with head feed axial flow combine harvester for paddy

Table 4.4Cost analysis of manual harvesting and threshing of paddy

26

Table 4.5 Cost analysis for head feed axial flow combine harvester

Parameters Results

Operating cost of combine harvester, Rs/h 1652.25

Effective field capacity of machine, ha/h 0.42

Cost of machine operation, Rs/ha 3933.25

Total harvesting loss due to machine operation, % 1.65

Total harvesting loss, kg/ha 82.5

Monetary value of lost grain in the form of harvesting loss due to machine operation, Rs/ha 2557.5

Total harvesting cost, Rs/ha 6490.75

Table 4.6 Cost-benefit ratio

Particulars Results

Cost of total harvesting & threshing by conventional method, Rs/ha 11400

Cost of combine harvester operation. Rs/ha 6490.75

Cost-benefit ratio 1.76

Table 4.7 Total losses in combine harvesting of paddy at different moisture content having same cylinder

speed (600 rpm)

Moisture Content

(%)

Collectable Loss

(%)

Non Collectable Loss

(%)

Pre-harvest Loss

(%)

Total Loss

(%)

18 0.86 0.79 1.40 3.05

19 1.43 0.80 1.12 3.35

20 1.62 0.82 1.09 3.53

22 1.92 0.83 0.99 3.74

Fig 4.1 Total losses in combine harvesting of paddy at different moisture contents

0

1

2

3

4

18 19 20 22

Collectable Loss

Non Collectable

Loss

Pre-harvest Loss

Total Loss

27

4.1 Analysis of Breakeven Point and Payback Period

The analysis of breakeven point indicates that combine harvester was required to

cover a minimum area of 143.2 ha in case of paddy crop annually in comparison to

manual harvesting and threshing by hand beating in paddy including grain and straw loss.

The breakeven point analysis of self propelled combine with manual harvesting in case of

paddy was 341 h.

The analysis of breakeven point and payback period of the machine is shown in

Appendix- B. This showed that if farmer purchase this machine at the cost of Rs 20 lakhs,

its cost can be recovered in nearly 4.3 years if it is used for 500 h annually for the

harvesting and threshing crop.

28

Chapter 5

Summary and Conclusions

The field performance of axial flow combine harvester was evaluated as per BIS test code

IS: 8122 (Part – 2) with three replication for harvesting of paddy crop. The machine economics

was also calculated in comparison to manual harvesting and threshing of paddy crop by hand

beating. The following conclusion from the study was drawn:

1. Harvesting and threshing by the head feed combine harvester in comparison to manual

harvesting saved Rs. 4922.54 /ha in paddy crop.

2. Average fuel consumption of head feed combine harvester was found 9.5 l/h.

3. The harvesting and threshing by the head feed combine harvester of paddy crop at

18% wet basis moisture content of grains gave minimum total harvesting loss by the

machine i.e. 1.65%.

4. Total average grain loss by machine was about 3.05% in paddy crop whereas by

manual harvesting and threshing it was 1.5% in paddy crop.

5. Payback period of head feed combine harvester was found to be 4.5 years when

combine harvested is operated for 500 hours annually.

6. Breakeven point was 342 h in paddy crop harvesting and threshing.

29

REFERENCES

Alizadeh MR, Allameh A. (2011). Threshing force of paddy as affected by loading manner and

grain position on the panicle. Research in Agricultural Engineering. 57(1): 8-12.

Alizadeh, M. R. and Bagheri, I. (2009).Field performance evaluation of different rice threshing

methods. International Journal of Natural and Engineering Sciences, 3(3),1307-1149.

Andrews, S. B., Siebenmorgen, T. J., Vories, E. D., Loewer, D. H. and Mauromoustakos, A.

(1993). Effects of combine operating parameters on harvest loss and quality rice.

American Society of Agriculture Engineers, 36(6), 1599-1607.

Anonymous. (1976). Indian standard Test code for combine harvester thresher IS:8122 (Part-1).

Anonymous. (1981). Indian standard Test code for combine harvester thresher IS:8122 (Part-2).

B. H. Boyce; R. T. Pringle; M. D. Wills. (1974). The separation characteristics of a combine

harvester and a comparison of straw walker performance. J. agric. Engg Res. 19, 77-84

Chhabra S D. (1975). Studies on threshing of paddy and wheat by axial flow thresher,

unpublished M. Tech. thesis. Department of agricultural engineering, G. B. Pant

University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar

Chuan-Udom, S., Chinsuwan,W. (2009). Threshing Unit Losses Prediction Thai Axial Flow

Rice Combine Harvester. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America

(AMA). 40(1), 50-54

Craessaerts G; Maertens K; De Baerdemaeker J (2005) . A design environment for combine

automation via CANbus. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 49(2), 233-245.

DePauw A R; R L Francis and H C Sydner (1977).Enginering aspects of axial flow combine

design. Paper no. 77-1550, Presented at 1977 winter meeting of ISAE held at Chicago,

Illinois from Dec 13-16, 1977

Dhillon, B. S., Kataria, P. and Dhillon, P. K. (2010).National food security vis-à-vis

sustainability of agriculture in high crop productivity regions. Curr. Sci. 98: 33-36

Dogra, B., Dogra, R. and Mahal, J. S. (2010). Comparative grain losses using conventional and

axial flow combine harvesters for paddy. Agricultural Engineering Today, 35(4), 15-18.

Ghadge S B; Kadu V M; Rane S V; Patil S K ; Khairnar S A. (2004). Estimation of field

losses of combine harvester for wheat crop paper presented during 38th

annual convention

of ISAE held at Dapoli (Maharashtra)

Goss J R; Kepner R A; Jones L G. (1958). Performance characteristics of the grain combine in

barley. Agricultural Engineering, ASAE. 39:697-702

Kepner R A; Bainer Roy; Berger F I. (1972). Principles of farm machinery. The CBS

publishers and distributors.

Mehta M. L; Verma S R; Mishra S K; Sharma V K. (1995). Testing and evaluation of

agricultural machinery, Published by National agricultural technology information centre,

Ludhiana

Mishra T N; Bisht B S. (1974). Evaluation of losses in paddy combining. Journal of

Agricultural Engineering. 11(5-6):19-21.

Neal A E; Cooper G F. (1970). Laboratory testing of rice combines. Trans ASAE. 13(6):824

Nyberg E O. (1964): Test procedure for determining combine capacity. Canadian Agricultural

Engineering. 6:8-10 Jan

Nyberg E O; Mccoly H F; Hinkle R T. (1969). Grain combine losses characteristics. Trans

30

ASAE. 12(6):727-732

Ojha T P; Michael A M. (1976). Principles of agricultural engineering Volume-I Published by

Jain brothers, New Delhi

Panesar B S (1998). Integrating spatial and temporal models: an energy example. In

Agricultural System Modeling and Simulation (Peart R M; Curry R B eds). Pp 93-112.

Marcel Dekker, Inc.,New York

Pawar, C. S., Shirsat, N. A., andPathak, S. V. (2007). Performance evaluation of combine

harvester and combination of self propelled vertical conveyor reaper with thresher for

wheat harvesting. Ag. Update, 3(1&2),123-126.

Reed W B; Zoerb G C. (1972). A laboratory study of straw walker efficiency. ASAE pape.r

72.638 Dec.

Sangwijit P, Chinsuwan W. (2010). Prediction equations for losses of axial flow rice combine

harvester when harvesting Chainat 1 Rice variety. KKU Res J. 15(6): 496-504.

Sharanakumar, Hiregoudar, Udhaykumar, R U and Ramappa, K T (2011). Techno-

economic feasibility of rice combine harvester. Engg & Tech in India, 2(122): 13-17.

Sharma V K. (2000). Study of socio economics impact of combine harvester, Project report,

Addl. Director of research (Engg.) PAU Ludhiana

Singh, J. (1985). Economics of combine harvesters. Progressive farming (August) 18-19.

Singh, K N; Mishra, T N; Singh, B. (1975). Combine operation for minimum losses. Bulletin

No. AE-3, Department of Agricultural Engineering College of Technology,

Pantnagar(India), pp: 41.

Singh K K; Kumar Anil; Jat A S. (2004). Economic feasibility of straw thresher paper

presented during 38th

annual convention of ISAE held at Dapoli (Maharashtra)

Sivaswami M; Bhaskar Sindhu. (2004). Study on the use of paddy combine in south India

paper presented during 38th

annual convention of ISAE held at Dapoli (Maharashtra).

Thakur, T.C. (2002). Present status and constraints of technologies for straw retrieval from rice-

wheat fields. A paper presented in the group meeting on straw management in combine

harvested rice – wheat fields, held at PAU, Ludhiana on May, 6-7.

Wiencke F. (1964). Performance characteristics of rasp bar thresher. Grundi Land Tech, Heft

21:33.34.

Wrubleski P D; Smith L G. (1980). Separation characteristics of conventional and non – conventional grain combine. Trans. ASAE.23(3):530-34

31

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title Page No.

3.1 Material and instruments used during the experiment 11

4.1 Crop & field and machine performance parameters of head feed

axial flow combine harvester

24

4.2 Head feed axial flow combine harvester capacity 24

4.3 Total harvesting losses with head feed axial flow combine harvester

for paddy

25

4.4 Cost analysis of manual harvesting and threshing of paddy 25

4.5 Cost analysis for head feed axial flow combine harvester 26

4.6 Cost-benefit ratio 26

4.7 Total losses in combine harvesting of paddy at different moisture

content having same cylinder speed (600 rpm)

26

32

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Title Page No.

Fig.1.1 Crop flow in axial flow and conventional type threshing cylinder 2

Fig. 1.2 Grain loss of axial flow combine harvester 3

Fig. 3.1 Marking of test run (20m) with sighting poles 11

Fig. 3.2 Collection of pre-harvest losses 12

Fig. 3.3 Pre-harvest loss grain sample 12

Fig. 3.4 Cloth being rolled over on the roller behind combine 12

Fig. 3.5 Arrangement for field testing of combine harvester 13

Fig. 3.6 Recording time taken to cover the test run 13

Fig. 3.7 Collection of grain sample from the main outlet 13

Fig. 3.8 Collection of straw on cloth sheet 14

Fig. 3.9 Discarding other material from chaff 14

Fig. 3.10 Marked area after combine operation and collection of header loss

grains

14

Fig. 3.11 Collection of soil sample 14

Fig. 3.12 Weighing of soil sample 14

Fig. 3.13 Collection and weighing of straw sample 15

Fig. 3.14 A tachometer 15

Fig. 4.1 Total losses in combine harvesting of paddy at different moisture

contents

26

33

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations Description

cm Centimeter

cm2

Square centimeter

Engg. Engineering

FMPE Farm Machinery & Power Engineering

etc. Etcetera

et al. Et. alit (and other)

Fig. Figure

gm Gram

h Hour

i.e. That is

kg Kilogram

kg/hr Kilogram/hour

KW Kilo watt

kw-h Kilowatt-hour

m Meter

mg Milligram

min Minute

ml Milliliter

mm Milimeter

mt Metric tone

No. Number

rpm Revolution per minute

Rs Rupees

s Second

t Tones

wb Wet basis

34

LIST OF SYMBOLS

Symbols Meaning % Percentage

35

APPENDIX-A

Cost of operation of machine used in harvesting and threshing of crop

Sr. No. Items Value

1. Assumptions

(a) Initial cost (P) Rs

(b) Salvage cost (10% of P) Rs

(c) Service life (L) y

(d) Annual use (X) h

(e) Interest rate per year (I) %

20,00,000

2,00,000

10

500

7

2. Fixed cost

(a) Depreciation, Rs/y

Rs/h

(b) Interest, Rs/y

Rs/h

(c) Insurances and taxes, housing @3% of P Rs/y

Rs/h

Total Fixed cost Rs/y

Total Fixed cost Rs/h

1,80,000

360

77,000

154

60,000

120

3,17,000

634

3. Variable cost

(a) Fuel cost Rs/h

(b) Lubrication cost Rs/h

(c) Repair and maintenance cost Rs/h

(d) Labour wages Rs/h

Total variable cost Rs/h

427.5

128.25

400

62.5

1018.25

4. Cost of operation (FC + VC) Rs/h 1652.25

Custom hire cost (Rs/ha) of combine harvester = 3000

36

APPENDIX – B

Analysis of breakeven point and payback period in paddy crop

Breakeven point in paddy crop

B. E. P. = Fixed cost Rs/yCustom Fees Rs h⁄ − Operating Cost Rs/h

= , , Rs/y, Rs/h − . Rs/h

= 341h/y

Where, Custom Fees (C.F.) = (1.25 x Operating Cost) + (0.25 x 1.25 x Operating Cost)

Payback period in Paddy crop

P = Initial Cost Rs[Custom Fees Rs h⁄ − Operating Cost Rs h⁄ ] x Annual Usage

= Rs ,[ Rs/h − . Rs/h ] x

= 4.3 years

37

APPENDIX- C

Detail of cost calculation parameters under different systems of harvesting and

threshing of paddy and wheat crops

(i) Combine harvesting:

Grain loss = 1.65%

Av. Yield = 50 q/ha

Grain price = Rs 31/kg

Cost of grain loss = Rs 2557.5/ha

(ii) Manual harvesting:

Grain loss = 1.5%

Av. Yield = 52 q/ha

Grain price = Rs 31/kg

Cost of grain loss = Rs 2400/ha

APPENDIX- D

SPECIFICATIONS ISO 9001 ISO 14001 OHSAS 18001

NO:954596 \NO:771475 NO:K033008

model DSM72

overroll length (mm) 4445

dimension overroll width (mm) 1910

overroll height (mm) 2635

weight (kg) 3130

model E4DE-T

type Water-cooled, 4-cylinder, direct injection turbo

engine total displacement (CC) 2955

Power/Revolutions (PS/rpm) 72/2700

Fuel tank capacity (ℓ) 67

center distance (mm) 1030

Crawler width x ground contact (mm) 450×1580

contact pressure (kgf/cm2) 0.22

Driving system transmission type HST(SERVO control)

range 3 stage

standard operating speed (m/s) 1.62

the type of turn BRAKE-SOFT-SPIN Turn

Number of reaped crops 4

Reaping interval (mm) 1450~1500

Reaping Unit Width of reaping cutting blade (mm) 1450

type of reaping cutting blade two blades sliding cutting

type of speed Speed-synchronized + Elevator (3 steps)

Threshing type Half feeding, single trash drum

Threshing cylinder diameter×width (mm) 424×900

Threshing unit

revolution speed (rpm) 505

processing cylider(1) diameter×width (mm) 140×725

processing cylider(2) diameter×width (mm) 140×100

Sieve case(width×diameter) (mm) 665×1550

Grain discharging tank capacity (ℓ) 1400(approx. 28 bags)

system turning radious(degree)-turning type 270-electric moter

Straw discharging processing Factory specification

Straw discharging separation/collection system (shooter type)

system

Micom •

Grain leveling guage •

Load indication •

Intensive lubrication •

Automatic reaping height control •

Automatic threshing depth control •

Automatic horizontal control of body •

The other Automatic devices Automatic turn control of unloader •

devices

Automatic engine stop function •

Engine forward/reverse direction fan control ×

Automatic reaping clutch •

Remote controler of unloader •

Fully open threshing cylinder •

Sieve case slide •

Elevator divider optional

Multi-cutter optional

operating capacity (minite/10a) 11~16

Dealer Imprint Area

1422-5, Seocho-Dong, Seocho-Ku, Seoul, Korea Tel. 82-2-3470-7454~9 Fax. 82-2-3470- www.daedong.co.kr

39

BIODATA

Name: Madhuri Gupta

Father’s Name: Sh. Pardeep Kumar Gupta

Date of Birth: 30 Jan. 1994

Permanent Address: #1163/12, Ram Nagar Colony

Thanesar City

Kurukshetra, Haryana

Contact Information:

Mobile No.: +91-8901309152

Email ID: [email protected]

40

BIODATA

Name: Moin Khan

Father’s Name: Sh. Mehboob Khan

Date of Birth: 04Apr. 1993

Permanent Address: #1068, Mizlawat Mohalla

Akera, Teh. Nuh

Mewat, Haryana

Contact Information:

Mobile No.: +91-9467966268

Email ID: [email protected]

Placement Information: Placed in Sonalika Tractors (International Tractors Ltd.)