Nigerian Journal of Tropical Engineering

Vol. 7, No. 2, 2011, PP. 36 -48, ISSN 1595-5397.

EVALUATION OF GRAIN CLEANING BASED ON REBOUND

TRAJECTORY
A.O.Lawal*, A.N.Jibril** and M.M.Jaliya*
*
National Agricultural Extension and Research Liaison Services,
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.
aolawal10@yahoo.co.uk
**
Department of Rural Development,
Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Abuja.

ABSTRACT
Grain-impurity separation based on differences in the rebound trajectories of the grains
and impurities was investigated. Tests conducted using different roller materials and sizes
showed that the parameter which significantly influenced the rebound distance is the
roller diameter. The average rebound distance of the agricultural materials used ranged
between 27.4cm for palm kernel to 38.2cm for soybean. In a mixture of crops and their
common impurities, separation effectiveness achieved were 49% for soybean, 31% for
palm kernel and 29% each for rice and groundnut. Pending improvement in the
separation effectiveness, the concept can only be used in a pre-cleaning unit that will
reduce the proportion of impurities from an admixture of crops and impurities

1.0 Introduction degree of separation achievable could

Separating undesirable elements from
first-stage processed agricultural
produce is one of the most important
post-harvest processing operations for
the production of high quality seeds and
food crops. The commercial value of
these items depends on their grade factor
which, in turn, depends mostly on the
cleanliness of the grain [1]. It was
asserted that the presence of impurities
especially stones in locally produced
grains has been one of the greatest
impediments to their acceptance by
consumers [2]. The need for effective
grain cleaning cannot be over-
emphasised.
Traditional methods of grain cleaning
include winnowing and handpicking.
Apart from being laborious and slow, the
also be imprecise [3].
Grain separation has been based on
differences in physical properties such as
length, width, thickness, shape, density,
surface area, volume, etc and electrical
properties such as differences in
response of materials to electromagnetic
waves (optical, gamma, or X-rays, and
electrical conductance) [4]; [5]; [6]).
Similarly, differences in the colour of
the materials making up the mixture is
used [7]. Magnetic separators, used
more as pre-cleaners, are used for
extracting metallic impurities from the
grain. [8] reported the cleaning of
soybeans by aspiration. Emerging crop
cleaning methods include machine-
vision-based systems [9], [10] and that
based on the path (trajectory) followed
by produce after bouncing on a rotating

36
 Evaluation of Grain cleaning based on Rebound Trajectory
roller. The rebound trajectory has been
found to be different for various crops
and crop impurities [11].
While the rebound trajectory concept has
been used to separate potatoes and
onions from clods ([12]; [13]), there is
neither a report of its use to separate
grains from impurities nor data on the
rebound distance of grain crops and their
impurities. Yet, this information will be
invaluable for the design and analysis of
machines utilizing the concept of
rebound trajectory.
This study was therefore undertaken to:
determine the factors that influence the
rebound properties of soybean, rice,
groundnut and palm kernel and their
commonly associated impurities;
quantify the rebound distances of these
crops and their impurities; and examine
the possibilities of using the rebound
trajectory concept as a basis for
separating grains from their associated
impurities.
2.0 Materials and Methods
2.1 The Equipment
The apparatus used for the study is
similar to that used by [12] and it is
shown schematically as Figure 1. It
comprised a conveyor, roller and
collector. The conveyor and the roller
were each driven by a dc electric motor
whose speeds were controlled by
rheostats. The instrumentation of the
rheostat control is shown in Figure 2.
The two motors ran in opposite
directions.
Four rollers, made from 2mm thick
galvanized iron sheet, were used for the
investigation. Two of the rollers had
diameters of 75mm, while the other two
were 200mm.
37
One each of the two sizes was wrapped
with 3mm thick automobile tyre tube to
act as rubber rebound surface while the
other group acted as metal rebound
surfaces.
The collector was a rectangular tray
made from 2mm thick G.I. sheet and
filled with sand to prevent further
rebound of any material that lands on it.
The set-up was operated by manually
dropping test samples on the belt such
that the belt’s forward movement
projected the material on the contra-
rotating roller which bounced it in the
direction opposite to that of its approach.
The material was then collected in the
sand box and the distance of the
attachment point relative to the
centerline of the roller, rebound distance,
was measured and used to quantify the
trajectory.
2.2 Experimental Design and
Procedures.
It was initially considered that a large
number of variables may influence the
rebound of the test materials and their
impurities, and it was therefore
considered necessary to conduct a
preliminary experiment to sort out the
important ones. More elaborate
experiments were then conducted to
study the influence of the identified
variables on different materials using the
rebound principle.
2.2.1 Screening of Variables
There were a total of seven variables
considered. The seven are listed in Table
1 along with their considered levels.
Five of them are shown in figure 1. The
other two variables that cannot be shown
are grain type and rebound surface. The
screening was the first stage experiment
 A.O.Lawal, A.N.Jibril and M.M.Jaliya

to determine the most important variables.

Figure 1: Schematic of experimental apparatus showing some studied variables

38
 Evaluation of Grain cleaning based on Rebound Trajectory

Figure 2: Instrumentation for varying the speed of the dc electric motors using rheostat
control

39
 A.O.Lawal, A.N.Jibril and M.M.Jaliya

Table 1: Experimental Variables and their considered Levels.

Level of Variable
Exptal Experimental Low(-) High (
Code Variable +)

1 Grain type, T Soybean Rice

2 Speed of conveyor, 0.125ms- 0.188ms-
1 1
3 v
4 Roller diameter, D 75mm 200mm
5 Rebound surface, S Rubber G.I.
6 Roller speed, n 200rpm sheet
7 Horizontal distance 290mm 400mm
d 530mm 550mm
Vertical distance, h 400mm
(relative to sand
filling)

Referring to Table 1, it could be seen
that the last two columns have minus (-)
and plus (+) signs respectively,
representing the high and low levels of
particular variables in response to the
demands of this type of factorial
experiment introduced by [14], [15], and
[16]. When the system is run with the
variables as dictated by the design
matrix the rebound distance of the
materials are measured. For this study,
10 rebound measurements were taken
during each run. Materials that do not
impinge the roller at the preferred angle
of 40o – 50o from the vertical axis were
ignored.
2.2.2 Effect of Experimental Variables
on Rebound of Experimental Materials
From the results of the screening
experiment, a more elaborate set of
experiments were conducted to study the
effect of roller size, conveyor speed,
rebound surface, roller speed and the
vertical and horizontal distances on the
rebounds of various crops and their
commonly associated impurities as
presented in Table 3. The experimental

40
 Evaluation of Grain cleaning based on Rebound Trajectory

materials used and their states are also listed in Table 4.

Table 3: Magnitudes of the factors used in studying the effect of experimental
variables on the rebound of experimental materials.

Experimental Experimental Magnitude

Code Variables
1 Experimental As listed
2 material in table 4
3 Speed of 0.185m/s
4 conveyor, v 200mm
5 Diameter of G.I. sheet
6 roller, D 300 rpm
7 Rebound 490mm-
surface, S 580mm
Speed of 530mm
roller, n
Horizontal
distance, d
Vertical
distance, h

Table 4: Experimental Materials used for the substantive experiment

S/No Experimental materials used for the Moisture content %

substantive experiment
1 Soybean 9.2
2 Soybean 10.1
3 Soybean 13.8
4 Rice grain 9.2
5 Stone particle < 100mm N.A
6 Groundnut seeds 9.4
7 Groundnut shells N.A
8 Palm kernel seeds 9.2
9 Palm kernel shells N.A
N. A. Not Applicable

2.2.3 Determination of separation various fractions along a collector

effectiveness partitioned at 100mm intervals were
To investigate the separation recorded after each run. Each of the
effectiveness achievable using the runs (4 in number) was replicated once
rebound principles, experimental crops to make a total of eight runs.
and their commonly associated The separation effectiveness of a
impurities, listed in Table 5 were fed separator can be determined as the
onto the system. The distribution of the

41
 A.O.Lawal, A.N.Jibril and M.M.Jaliya

product of recovery and rejection [17] I i = Impurities in impurities collection

given as: zone
Cc Ii I c = Impurities in crop collection zone.
E= X
C c + C i I i + I c ……………(1)
In applying the above relationship, the
where
collection box was assumed to be
C c = Crops in crop collection zone
partitioned according to the optimum
C i = Crops in impurities collection zone rebound distance of the crops and
bordered by those of the impurities.

Table 5: Crop impurity mixtures used for separation effectiveness study

ADMIXTURE
S/No Seed Grain Impurity
1 Soybean 9.2% Stone particle
m.c. (2.0-3.5mm dia)
2 Stone particles <
Rice 9.2% 1.0mm dia
3 m.c. Groundnut
4 shells
G/nut 9.2% Palm kernel
m.c. shells.
Palm kernel
9.2% m.c.

3.0 Results and Discussion The effects of the experimental variables

Effect of variables on crop rebound on the rebound trajectories of the
experimental crops are listed in Table 6.

Table 6: Effects of Experimental Variable

Experimental Experimental Effects
Code Variable
1 Grain type, T 1.81 n.s.

2 Conveyor speed, V 0.96 n.s

3 Roller diameter, D 14.1*

4 Rebound surface, S 1.46 n.s.

5 Roller speed, N 3.21

6 Horizontal distance 0.64

D
7 4.4
Vertical distance, H
n.s. = not significant *= significant

42
 Evaluation of Grain cleaning based on Rebound Trajectory

By comparing the effects of the variable distance of the two crops used in the
with the standard error (se) calculated as screening experiment.
5.04, the roller diameter, D was found to
be the only significant variable. This 3.2 Interaction Effects
implies that only the roller diameter has The effects of two factor interactions are
a pronounced influence on the rebound given in Table 7.

Table 7: The Effects of two factor Interactions among Experimental Variables

Interaction Variables Involved Effect
Code
1-2 Grain type vs conveyor 2.04 n.s
1-3 speed 2.76 n.s
1-4 Grain type vs roller 3.09 n.s
2-3 diameter 1.24 n.s
2-4 Grain type vs rebound 1.41 n.s
3-4 surface 5.41 n.s
Conveyor speed vs roller
diameter
Conveyor speed vs
rebound surface
Roller diameter vs rebound
surface
n.s = Not significant

Comparing the se (5.04) with the
interaction effects it was found that none
of the effects were significant. This
implies interplay between any two of the
experimental variables will not
significantly influence the rebound
distance of the experimental materials.
3.3 Influence of variables on
rebound of materials
With the roller diameter fixed at 200mm
for maximum rebound, and other
experimental variable chosen based on
convenience and expedience, Table 8
shows the rebound parameters of various
materials used in the study.
With coefficient of variation all less than
0.300 (or 30%), the data are quite
acceptable in agricultural research [18].
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) of
the data is thus given in Table 9.
The ANOVA shows replication to be
significant which implies that the results
obtained are due to the intrinsic
properties of the materials and the
influence of equipment variables, and
not due to chance factors or errors.
Similarly, treatment effects were found
to be highly significant which means
there are great differences in the various
factors being studied in the conduct of
this study.

43
 A.O.Lawal, A.N.Jibril and M.M.Jaliya

Table 8: Rebound parameters of various materials at fixed experimental conditions.

S/No Experimental material Rebound Distance Co-efficient of

(cm)* variation
1 Soybean at 9.2% m.c. 38.2 0.101
2 Soybean at 10.1% m.c. 37.8 0.113
3 Soybean at 13.8% 37.9 0.069
4 Rice at 9.2% 38.1 0.090
5 Stone particles 1mm dia 29.2 0.094
6 Groundnut seed at 9.4% 34.8 0.095
7 m.c. 29.7 0.138
8 Groundnut shells 27.4 0.152
9 Palm kernel seeds at 9.2% 30.4 0.143
m.c.
Palm kernel shells
* = Average of 15 readings
m.c = Moisture content

Table 9: ANOVA of materials rebound at fixed experimental conditions

Source DF SS MS F Fo.o5 Fo.o1

Replication 14 408.3 29.16 2.48* 2.26 2.82
(R-1)
8 2431.43 303.93 25.84** 2.03 2.68
Treatment .
(t – 1) 112 1317.57 11.76

Error (r –
1) (t-1)
* = Significant; ** = Highly significant.

3.4 Pattern of crop impurity in a separator, there will be a high

separation achieved
The pattern of separation achieved when
crops and their impurities were fed onto
the experimental equipment is illustrated
by the charts of Figures 3(a) – (d).
Figure 3d shows that relatively greater
quantity of rice collected between
intervals 20-30cm and 30-40cm.
Incidentally, these two intervals have
higher crop impurity ratios of 3.2:1 and
9.2:1 respectively. Thus, if the “clean
crop” outlet is positioned at this interval
chance of collecting clean crops with
relatively fewer impurities than when the
collector is placed anywhere else.
A similar reasoning applies to soybean
Figure 3c in which the collector will
need to be placed at a distance of 40-
70cm to collect the proportion of clean
crops with the fewest impurities.
The collector for groundnut will need to
be placed at distance interval 30-60 cm

44
 Evaluation of Grain cleaning based on Rebound Trajectory
to collect the greatest proportion of clean
seeds Figure 3b.
The separation pattern of palm kernel
(Figure 3a) shows that the collector will
need to be placed at interval 40-70cm for
the greatest proportion of impurity-free
crops to be collected.
In all cases however, it is noted that
wherever the outlet is situated the
Table 10: Separation effectiveness of the various crop-impurity mixtures
S/No Crop impurity mixture
1 Rice and stone
2 Soybean and stone
3 Groundnut and groundnut
4 shells
Palm kernel and palm kernel
shells
Thus the separation effectiveness of the
four crops using differences in their
rebound distances as a separation
concept ranged between 29% and 49%.
This can be considered low. Hence,
unless the separation equipment is
modified to improve the separation
effectiveness, it may not be able to
function as a sole crop-impurity
separator, but may be used as a pre-
cleaner to reduce the proportion of
impurity from an admixture of crops and
impurities.
It is however, pertinent at this juncture to
state that separation effectiveness was
low because it was not possible to cause
all the materials (crops and impurities) to
follow similar projection trajectories. As
such while some of the materials
impinged correctly on the roller, others
did not; and nonetheless they fell into
the collection box. Such undesirable
45
proportion of crops that occur with the
impurities are quite considerable which
puts limitation on the suitability of the
system as a crop impurity separator.
3.5 Separation Effectiveness
The result of separation effectiveness
determined using this approach is given
in Table 10.
Separation
effectiveness
(%)
29
49
29
31
collections therefore distorted the
separation effectiveness results, as it was
not possible to isolate them.
4.0 Conclusion
The following conclusions could be
drawn from the above results:
• The parameter that significantly
influences the rebound distance
of spherical or almost spherical
crop materials and their
impurities is the diameter of the
rebounding roller.
• The rebound distance of the crop
materials used in the study
ranged from 27.4cm for palm
kernels seeds to 38.2cm for
soybean. The rebound distance
of impurities ranged from
29.2cm for stone particles to
30.4cm for palm kernel shells.
 A.O.Lawal, A.N.Jibril and M.M.Jaliya
• The separation effectiveness
achieved during tests involving
crops and their common
impurities were 49% for
soybean, 31% for palm kernel,
and 29% each for rice and
groundnut.
REFERENCES
1. Henderson, S. M. and R. L. Perry
(1976) Agricultural Process
Engineering. The AVI
Publications Co. Inc. Westport,
Connecticut pp 100-189.
2. Koya, O. A. and L.O. Adekoya
(1988) Development of a Grain
Destoner. Paper presented at
CIGR Inter-section symposium
held at the National Center for
Agric. Mechanization. Ilorin,
Nigeria. 5-10 September.
3. Clarke, B. (1985). Cleaning by
Fluidization. Journal of
Agricultural Engineering
Research 31:231 –242.
4. Mohsenin N. (1980) Physical
Properties of Plant and Animal
Materials Goron and Breach
Science Publishers, New York.
5. Culpin, C (1984) Farm
Machinery Grenada Technical
Book Grenada Publishing Ltd,
London. Pp. 258 – 261.
6. Sitkei, G. (1986). Mechanics of
Agriculture Materials, Elsevier
Science Publishing Co. Inc. New
York.
7. Zaltzman, A., and Z.
Schmilovitch (1986). Evolution
of a Potto Fluidized Bed Medium
Separator. Transactions of the
American society of agricultural
46
Engineers, ASAE 29(5): 1462 –
1469.
8. Hurburgh C.R. Jr., J. Buresch
and G. Rippke (1996). Aspiration
Cleaning of Soybeans. Journal of
Applied Engineering in
Agriculture. 12(5): 585-586.
9. Wan Y.N. (2002). Kernel
Handling Performance of an
Automatic Grain Quality
Ispection System. Transactions
of the ASABE. Vol. 45(2): 369-
377.
10. Paliwal J, D.S. Jayas, N.S. Visen
and N.D.G. White
(2004).Feasibility of a Machine-
Vision-Based Grain Cleaner.
Journal of Applied Engineering
in Agriculture. Vol. 20(2): 245-
248
11. Jibril A.N. (1994). Investigation
of grain-impurity separation
based on rebound trajectory. An
unpublished M.Sc thesis
submitted to the Department of
Agricultural Engineering,
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.
88pp.
12. Feller, R., D. Nahir, and C.G.
Coble (1984). Separation of
Clods from Onions Using
Impact. Transactions of the
ASAE 27 (2) 353:357.
13. Feller R. D., E. Margolin, A
Zacharin, and H. Pasternak
(1985). Development of a Clod
Separator for Potato Packing
Houses: Transactions of the
ASAE 4: 1019 – 1023 (July –
August)
14. Box, G.E. P. and J. S. Hunter
(1961). The 2K-P Fractional
 Evaluation of Grain cleaning based on Rebound Trajectory

Factorial Designs. Part I. John Wiley and Sons. Inc. New

Technometrics 3 (3) 40pp.
15. Box, G.E.P. and J. S. Hunter,
(1976). Statistics for
Experimenters: An Introduction
to Design, Data Analysis, and
Model Building 3rd ed, John
Wiley and Sons Inc. New York.
16. Guttman, I., S. S. Wilks, and J. S.
Hunter (1971) Introductory
Engineering Statistics (2nd ed)
York.
17. Brown, G.G., D. Katz and A. S.
Foust (1951): Unit Operations.
Pg. 15. John Wiley and Sons
New York.
18. Asiribo (1993). Personal
Communication. Data Processing
Unit, Institute for Agricultural
Research, ABU, Zaria, Nigeria.

47
 A.O.Lawal, A.N.Jibril and M.M.Jaliya

Fig.3a
50

45

40

35

30
palm kernel shell
25
palm kernel
20

15

10

0
10

Fig 3b
60

50
Mass of Materials Deposited (g)

40

Groundnut shell
30
Groundnut

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance (cm)

Fig 3c

18

16
Mass of Material Deposited (g)

14

12

10
Soyabean Stone
Soyabean
8

0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance (cm)

Fig 3d
7

6
Mass of Deposited Material (g)

4
Rice stones
Rice
3

0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance (cm)

48