Ajewole et al; IJFP, 2(1): 1-13, 2020; Article no.DJ/IJFP.

34122

International Journal of Food Processing (IJFP)

1(2): 1-13, 2020; Article no. DJ/IJFP.34122
ISSN: 2118-6556 www.developmentjournals.com

Design, Fabrication and Performance Evaluation of a

Portable Maize Shelling Machine
Ajewole, P. O.1, Oni, I. O.1 and Yusuf, A1.
1
Farm Power Unit, Department of Agricultural and Bio-Environmental Engineering,
The Federal Polytechnic Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State, Nigeria.

ABSTRACT

Maize is a major annual crop produced by farmers in rural areas of Ekiti State, Nigeria
and shelling of maize after harvest has been a major challenge to them. This has led to
an increase in demand for portable maize shelling machines which the farmers can easily
use on the farm and transport from one place to another. A maize sheller was designed,
fabricated and evaluated in this research work. The sheller consists of a hopper, a
concave cover, shelling compartment which consists of a drum with studs arranged on
the curved surface, cob outlet, centrifugal fan, chaff outlet and shelled maize outlet. The
maize sheller is driven by a 1460rpm electric motor with power rating of 5hp. The machine
was evaluated at different moisture content of 11.89%, 13.2% and 14%, different speeds
of 702.9rpm, 862.7rpm and 1116.4rpm and feed rate of 5kg at a time. Each test was
replicated five times. The result showed that the machine has shelling efficiencies of
76.2%, 80% and 79.4% at speed of 1460, 1195 and 785rpm respectively. The highest
grain output and efficiency were obtained at moisture content of 11.89% and with the
corresponding speed of 702.8rpm.

Keyword: Maize, Shelling, Efficiency, Speed, Moisture Content, Feed Rate

1.0 INTRODUCTION production as shown in Table 1 and Table 2.

The study of central Bank of Nigeria from
1990 to 2017, surveys the economic value of
Maize (Zea mays) in Nigeria and its impact
on global food production [1]. The result
analysis proves maize to be of high
economic value in Nigeria, contributing
massively to global increase in crop
Data presented in these tables indicate that
the production of maize has greatly
increased the economy of the nation, hence
presenting the crop as having the potential to
increase income of local farmers, apart from
generating huge foreign exchange earnings
for the country [2]. [3] and [4] also reported

1
 Ajewole et al; IJFP, 2(1): 1-13, 2020; Article no.DJ/IJFP.34122

that the crop is being used as local cash crop
for income generation.
The process of removing grains from the
cobs is known as shelling which simply
means detaching grains from the cobs. Local
or traditional ways of shelling maize
consume more energy and time. They are
also characterized by low output, impurities
and fatigue of the human body [5].
In addition to the aforementioned, the
construction of motorised maize sheller
which could be powered electrically or
mechanically is to reduce the problems faced
using traditional method. The construction of
the modern motorised maize sheller brings
about increase in output per labour and
production of quality grains is enhanced [6].
The importance attached to maize shelling
machine is the facilitation and the production
of voluminous corn shelling without much
time and without encountering much
breakage of grains of the corns in shortest
possible time. It also facilitates improvement
in working condition and reduces the losses
of local farmers.
According to [7], some of the existing maize
shelling machines are:
a. bicycle driven spring sheller
b. hand driven maize sheller
c. tractor driven maize sheller
d. motorized maize sheller
The existing maize shellers are normally
large and heavy, require high power input to
operate and produces low product quality in
terms of percentage seed breakage and
purity [8].
The need for improving on an existing
maize sheller is to provide a shelling
machine which is portable and has a good
working condition and shelling efficiency,
and the need for carrying out performance
evaluation of existing maize sheller is to
obtain the optimum working conditions
under which the farmers or end users can
get the maximum utility from the use of the
sheller.

2
 Ajewole et al; IJFP, 2(1): 1-13, 2020; Article no.DJ/IJFP.34122

Table 1: The Percentage Contribution of Maize to Total Grain Production, Economic and
Global Food Improvement in Nigeria in Thousand Tones from (1990-2017)

Year Maize Total % of Area Planted Price of CPI 1990

Grain Maize to Maize (Ha)Maize =
(N/ton) 3.459
1990 5,768.00 19725 29.2 211740 3000 3.459
1991 5,810.00 20464 28.4 263000 4000 5.068
1992 5,840.00 21590 27.1 676000 6000 8.002
1993 6,290.00 21780 28.9 693200 5500 11.746
1994 6,902.00 22041 31.3 925400 13000 20.177
1995 6,931.00 24776 28 898600 15500 26.465
1996 6,217.00 24872 25 912000 20000 28.556
1997 6,285.00 25798 24.4 905300 25000 30.565
1998 6,435.00 27082 23.8 908660 30000 32.465
1999 6,515.00 27450 23.7 908865 35000 34.225
2000 6,491.00 31554 20.6 928530 35000 36.177
2001 6,592.00 29988 22 935300 35000 37.175
2002 6,698.00 30755 21.8 940000 35000 39.445
2003 7,019.50 32497.4 21.6 940000 36000 40.02
SUM 89,793.50 360372.4 355.8 11046595 298000 353.545
Average 6413.82 25740.89 25.41 789042.5 21285.71 25.26
(Source: Annual Report and Statement of Account Central Bank Of Nigeria, Lagos)

Table 2: Percentage contribution of maize to total grain production in Nigeria

Year Value % of Maize

2017 13,342,013 18.08%

2016 12,002,634 12.45%
2015 10,264,271 9.87%
2014 10,058,968 19.43%
2013 8,422,670 -3.13%
2012 8,694,900 -2.078%
2011 8,878,456 15.65%
2010 7,676,850 4.33%
2009 7,358,260 -2.22%
2008 7,525,000 11.91%
2007 6,724,000 -5.30%
2006 7,100,000 19.19%
2005 5,957,000 7.01%
2004 5,567,000 7.00%
2003 7,019,500 21.6%
(Source: Annual Report and Statement of Account Central Bank Of Nigeria, Lagos)

3

2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Design Considerations
The two major factors considered in the
design and fabrication of the maize sheller
were cost and portability. The machine
overall dimension of 750mm x 500mm x
1150mm. It can be easily carried from one
place to another by farmers because the
components were joined using bolts and nuts
and are detachable. Locally available mild
steel were used for the fabrication thereby
reducing the cost of production.
2.2 Design calculations
The summary of the design calculations for
the major components of the machine is
presented in Table 3.
2.3 Machine Component Descriptions
The isometric, exploded and pictorial views
of the machine are shown in Fig. 1, 2 and 3
respectively. The maize sheller consists of
the following parts:
i. Frame: The frame is the unit of the
machine on which all other
components are mounted. The frame
provides support for the machine
during operation and when not in
operation.
ii. Hopper and Upper Concave: The
upper concave is a semi cylindrical
component which covers the shelling
drum and is bolted to the frame. The
hopper is welded on top of the
concave and is the component
through which cobs are fed into the
shelling chamber. The cobs falls into
the chamber under the effect of
gravity. The concave has a diameter
4
Ajewole et al; IJFP, 2(1): 1-13, 2020; Article no.DJ/IJFP.34122
of 400mm while the hopper has a
dimension of 250mm x 250mm x
500m.
iii. Shelling Drum: This is the most
important part of the shelling
machine, which helps in removing
(shelling) of the maize grains from the
cobs. Material used in construction is
mild steel, which is cut and folded into
cylindrical form. Rectangular shaped
studs were rigidly fixed on the
cylinder by welding and the surface of
the studs were smoothened by
grinding to prevent the grain damage.
A power transmission shaft driven by
the electric motor passes through the
middle of the drum and is welded to
it. The shelling drum has diameter of
200mm and length of 650mm.
iv. Grain Discharge Chamber: This is
casing covering the shelling cylinder
at upper part with a considerable
clearance. On the concave cover, the
hopper was placed. It is in form of half
cylinder.
v. Fan Unit: This is a part in which the
centrifugal fan was housed. The
centrifugal fan blows away the chaffs
and other little dirt from the grains to
be collected. The space are of the fan
is 200mm x 200mm and operates at
speed of 4m/s.
vi. Cob Outlet: This is a part where the
cobs come out from after rotation of
the shelling cylinder, the grains go
out through the holes on the concave
sieve, the cobs are pushed out
through the cob outlet.
 Ajewole et al; IJFP, 2(1): 1-13, 2020; Article no.DJ/IJFP.34122

Table 3: Design calculation summary

S/N Design Parameters Values Obtained Equations

1. Hopper Capacity 0.0153m3 1 2 1
a H1  b 2 H 2
3 3
2. Power Requirement 3.72kW (4.96hp) 2NT
P
60
3. Diameter of Driven 200mm ND
Pulley N2  1 1
D2
4. Power Transmission 29.5mm
d3 
16
 K t M t 2   K b M b 2
Shaft Diameter  s

5. Fan Capacity 576m3/hr SxA

Where a2 = area of the upper part of the hopper, b2 = area of the lower part of the hopper, H1 and
H2 are the major and minor heights of the hopper frustum, N = angular speed of the shelling drum,
T = torque of the shelling drum, N1= speed of the electric motor, N2 = driven pulley speed, D1 and
D2 are diameters of the electric motor and driven pulley respectively, d = power transmission shaft
diameter,  s is the allowable shear stress, Mt = torsional moment, Mb = total bending moment, Kt
and Kb are constants, S = fan speed and A = space area of the fan.

Fig 1: Isometric view of the maize sheller

5
 Ajewole et al; IJFP, 2(1): 1-13, 2020; Article no.DJ/IJFP.34122

Fig 2: Exploded view of the maize Fig 3: Pictorial view of the maize
sheller sheller

2.4 Performance Evaluation Procedure Wk

1. Shelling Capacity, SC   3600
In carrying out the performance evaluation of t
the machine, the machine was tested at where, SC = shelling capacity (kg/hr), Wk
three different moisture content of 11.89%, = weight of total output kernel in kg and t
13.2% and 14%., three different speeds of = recorded time (mins).
702.9rpm, 862.7rpm and 1116.4rpm and
one feed rate of 5kg at a time. Time taken for 2. Shelling efficiency (%)
each shelling operation was measured using Percentage by weight of shelled grains
a stop watch, moisture contents were from all outlets of the Sheller’s with
determined using gravimetric method while respect to total grain input and it is
the speeds of the machine were measured calculated by the following formula.
using a tachometer. This procedure is similar ShellingeEfficiency(%) 
to the one reported by [9]. The following weight of shelled grains from all outlets
 100
parameters were calculated at each test: total grains

6

xd
3. Cleaning Efficiency%   100
xd  y d
𝑥𝑑 = weight of materials other than grains
𝑦𝑑 = cracked and broken grains
Percentage Loss(%)
4. weight input  weight of output
  100
total input
3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the
results obtained are presented in Tables 4 –
12. Table 4 shows that there is highly
significant difference between the speed and
the moisture content since the p-value (0.00)
is less than α value (0.05) i.e. p-value < α
value. Table 5 shows that the mean
difference of the moisture content are highly
significant at 0.05 level except moisture
content 1 and moisture content 3 i.e. 11.89%
moisture content and 14% moisture content
respectively. Therefore 11.89% moisture has
the highest output. Table 6 shows that the
mean difference of the speed are
significantly different at speed 1 and speed 3
i.e. 702.9rpm and 1116.4rpm respectively.
But due to the negative sign it favor’s speed
702.9rpm which has the highest output.
Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9 shows that the
parameters are highly significant different at
moisture content 11.89%, 13.2%, and 14%
since their p-value (0.00) is less than the α-
value (0.05) i.e. p-value < α-value. Table 10
7
Ajewole et al; IJFP, 2(1): 1-13, 2020; Article no.DJ/IJFP.34122
shows that the mean difference of the
parameters are highly significant at 11.89%
moisture content. The percentage loss and
cleaning efficiency as well as shelling
efficiency and cleaning efficiency. Table 11
shows that the mean difference of the
parameters are highly significant at 13.2%
moisture content except shelling efficiency
and cleaning efficiency as well as
percentage loss and cleaning efficiency.
Table 12 shows that the mean difference of
the parameters are highly significant at 14%
moisture content except shelling efficiency
and cleaning efficiency. The result of
regression analysis showing the prediction at
11.89%, 13.2% and 14% presented in figure
8, 9 and 10. Three variables were factored
into non-linear regression model. Which are
speed (702.9rpm, 862.7rpm and
1116.4rpm). This is in agreement with the
results obtained by [5] and [10]. The
prediction at 11.89% moisture content has
the highest coefficient of determination 𝑅 2 at
speed 3 which is 0.3614, while 13.2% and
14% moisture content has the highest
coefficient of determination 𝑅 2 at speed 3
and speed 2 which are 0.3668 and 0.5296.
This results showed that there is high
positive correlation between cleaning
efficiency and shelling capacity and high
negative correlation was obtained for
shelling capacity.
 Ajewole et al; IJFP, 2(1): 1-13, 2020; Article no.DJ/IJFP.34122

Table 4: ANOVA for moisture content and speed

Dependent Variable: OBSERVATION
Type III Sum of
Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model .348a 4 .087 13.808 .013
Intercept 190.443 1 190.443 30225.763 .000
MOISTURECONTENT .292 2 .146 23.171 .006
SPEED .056 2 .028 4.445 .096
Error .025 4 .006
Total 190.816 9
Corrected Total .373 8
a. R Squared = .932 (Adjusted R Squared = .865)

Table 5: Multiple comparisons between moisture content

Dependent Variable: OBSERVATION
LSD
Mean 95% Confidence Interval
(I) (J) Difference Lower
MOISTURECONTENT MOISTURECONTENT (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Bound Upper Bound
MC1 MC2 -.392233* .0648109 .004 -.572177 -.212289
MC3 -.021167 .0648109 .760 -.201111 .158777
MC2 MC1 .392233* .0648109 .004 .212289 .572177
MC3 .371067* .0648109 .005 .191123 .551011
MC3 MC1 .021167 .0648109 .760 -.158777 .201111
MC2 -.371067* .0648109 .005 -.551011 -.191123
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square (Error) = .006.
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

8
 Ajewole et al; IJFP, 2(1): 1-13, 2020; Article no.DJ/IJFP.34122

Table 6: Multiple comparison between Speeds

Dependent Variable: OBSERVATION

LSD
95% Confidence Interval
Mean Upper
(I) SPEED (J) SPEED Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Bound
SP1 SP2 -.077533 .0648109 .298 -.257477 .102411
SP3 -.192067* .0648109 .041 -.372011 -.012123
SP2 SP1 .077533 .0648109 .298 -.102411 .257477
SP3 -.114533 .0648109 .152 -.294477 .065411
SP3 SP1 .192067* .0648109 .041 .012123 .372011
SP2 .114533 .0648109 .152 -.065411 .294477
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square (Error) = .006.
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 7: ANOVA for moisture content 11.89%

Dependent Variable: observation

Type III Sum
Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
a
Corrected Model 127436.086 5 25487.217 28.961 .000
Intercept 114106.202 1 114106.202 129.659 .000
4parameters 123717.900 3 41239.300 46.860 .000
speed 3718.186 2 1859.093 2.112 .202
Error 5280.278 6 880.046
Total 246822.566 12
Corrected Total 132716.364 11
a. R Squared = .960 (Adjusted R Squared = .927)

9
 Ajewole et al; IJFP, 2(1): 1-13, 2020; Article no.DJ/IJFP.34122

Table 8: Multiple Comparisons between the parameters at 11.89% moisture content

Dependent Variable: observation
LSD
Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval
(I) parameters (J) parameters (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
SE CE 42.2533 24.22184 .132 -17.0154 101.5220
SC -192.0967* 24.22184 .000 -251.3654 -132.8280
PL 65.7367* 24.22184 .035 6.4680 125.0054
CE SE -42.2533 24.22184 .132 -101.5220 17.0154
SC -234.3500* 24.22184 .000 -293.6187 -175.0813
PL 23.4833 24.22184 .370 -35.7854 82.7520
SC SE 192.0967* 24.22184 .000 132.8280 251.3654
CE 234.3500* 24.22184 .000 175.0813 293.6187
PL 257.8333* 24.22184 .000 198.5646 317.1020
PL SE -65.7367* 24.22184 .035 -125.0054 -6.4680
CE -23.4833 24.22184 .370 -82.7520 35.7854
SC -257.8333* 24.22184 .000 -317.1020 -198.5646
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square (Error) = 880.046.
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 9: ANOVA for moisture 13.2%

Dependent Variable: observation
Type III Sum of
Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 108080.691a 5 21616.138 26.484 .001
Intercept 117273.664 1 117273.664 143.682 .000
parameter 106105.996 3 35368.665 43.333 .000
speed 1974.695 2 987.347 1.210 .362
Error 4897.202 6 816.200
Total 230251.557 12
Corrected Total 112977.894 11
a. R Squared = .957 (Adjusted R Squared = .921)

10
 Ajewole et al; IJFP, 2(1): 1-13, 2020; Article no.DJ/IJFP.34122

Table 10: Multiple Comparisons between the parameters at 13.2% moisture content
Dependent Variable: observation
LSD
Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval
(I) parameter (J) parameter (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
SE CE 28.3333 23.32667 .270 -28.7450 85.4116
SC -170.3267* 23.32667 .000 -227.4050 -113.2484
PL 80.6033* 23.32667 .014 23.5250 137.6816
CE SE -28.3333 23.32667 .270 -85.4116 28.7450
SC -198.6600* 23.32667 .000 -255.7383 -141.5817
PL 52.2700 23.32667 .066 -4.8083 109.3483
SC SE 170.3267* 23.32667 .000 113.2484 227.4050
CE 198.6600* 23.32667 .000 141.5817 255.7383
PL 250.9300* 23.32667 .000 193.8517 308.0083
PL SE -80.6033* 23.32667 .014 -137.6816 -23.5250
CE -52.2700 23.32667 .066 -109.3483 4.8083
SC -250.9300* 23.32667 .000 -308.0083 -193.8517
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square (Error) = 816.200.
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 11: ANOVA for moisture content 14%

Dependent Variable: observation
Type III Sum of
Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 58183.139a 5 11636.628 39.197 .000
Intercept 95415.467 1 95415.467 321.395 .000
parameter 56919.844 3 18973.281 63.909 .000
speed 1263.295 2 631.648 2.128 .200
Error 1781.272 6 296.879
Total 155379.878 12
Corrected Total 59964.411 11
a. R Squared = .970 (Adjusted R Squared = .946)

11
 Ajewole et al; IJFP, 2(1): 1-13, 2020; Article no.DJ/IJFP.34122

Table 12: Multiple comparisons between the parameters at 14% moisture content

Dependent Variable: observation

LSD
Mean 95% Confidence Interval
(I) parameter (J) parameter Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
SE CE 5.3067 14.06837 .719 -29.1174 39.7307
SC -123.8667* 14.06837 .000 -158.2907 -89.4426
PL 65.6000* 14.06837 .003 31.1759 100.0241
CE SE -5.3067 14.06837 .719 -39.7307 29.1174
SC -129.1733* 14.06837 .000 -163.5974 -94.7493
PL 60.2933* 14.06837 .005 25.8693 94.7174
SC SE 123.8667* 14.06837 .000 89.4426 158.2907
CE 129.1733* 14.06837 .000 94.7493 163.5974
PL 189.4667* 14.06837 .000 155.0426 223.8907
PL SE -65.6000* 14.06837 .003 -100.0241 -31.1759
CE -60.2933* 14.06837 .005 -94.7174 -25.8693
SC -189.4667* 14.06837 .000 -223.8907 -155.0426
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square (Error) = 296.879.
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

12
 Ajewole et al; IJFP, 2(1): 1-13, 2020; Article no.DJ/IJFP.34122

4.0 CONCLUSION 5. Glauze, P. (1972): Mechanical production

A maize sheller was designed, tested, and
the performance evaluation was carried out
to determine the efficiency of the machine at
different speeds and moisture contents.
Based on the data and result obtained from
the performance evaluation and the analysis
in this study, it could be concluded that:
i. When the speed is low, it takes more
time to shell the maize
ii. The highest percentage of maize
grain was obtained at moisture
content 11.89% and with the
corresponding speed of 702.8rpm.
iii. All the three speeds contribute to the
performance of the machine in which
the machine can be operated at any
of the three speeds of 702.9rpm,
862.7rpm and 1116.4rpm
respectively.
5.0 REFERENCES
1. CBN, Central Bank of Nigeria (2017):
Annual Report and Statement of Account
Central bank Of Nigeria, Lagos.
2. IITA, International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture. (2016): Maize (Zea May l.)
Production.
3. Ayeni, A.O. (2006): Maize Production in
Nigeria: problems and prospect. Journal of
food and Agriculture 2: 123-129.
of Maize in the Tropical and Sub-Tropical
Regions. Technical Fundamental. Edition
Leipzig 138-186.
6. Bello, R.S. (2006): Effect of Threshing
Drums on Thresher Performance.
International Journal of Science and
Technology Research, Volume, No 1 and 2,
Ikot ekpene Nigeria Development
Consortium.
7. Candia, A., Saasa, A. R., Muzei, J. and
Ocen, P. (2003): Academy Journal on
Motorized Maize Sheller Efficiency,
Agricultural Engineering and Appropriate
Technology Research Institution (AEATRI)
15th edition
8. Patil, A.T. et al. (2014): Development and
performance evaluation of pedal Operated
Maize Sheller. Eng and Tech in Indian, 5.
9. Adejumo, B.A. (2006): Performance
Evaluation of Okra Thresher. Agricultural
Engineering international, the CIGR E-
journal Manuscript Volume vii.
10. Sandbar, N.S. and Panwar, J.S. (1995):
Studies on Machine Crop Variables
Influencing shelling of maize. PP. 8-14,
Indian Journal of Agriculture.
© 2020 Ajewole et al.; This is an Open Access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.

4. Ogunsumi, L.O. and Daramola, A.G.

(2017): Socio- economic Impact Assessment
of Maize Production Technology on Farmers’
Welfare in Southwest Nigeria. Journal of
Central European Agriculture, 6. 15-
26.

13