See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326490185

Design, construction and performance evaluation of a flat screen hammer

mill machine

Book in African Journal of Science Technology Innovation and Development · July 2018
DOI: 10.1080/20421338.2018.1491675

CITATIONS READS

9 33,727

4 authors, including:

Benjamin. O Ezurike Jennifer I. Osazuwa

Federal University Ndufu Alike Ikwo Ahmadu Bello University
38 PUBLICATIONS 118 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 9 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Okoronkwo Chukwunenye Anthony

Federal University of Technology Owerri
85 PUBLICATIONS 280 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Okoronkwo Chukwunenye Anthony on 19 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and
Development

ISSN: 2042-1338 (Print) 2042-1346 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rajs20

Design, construction and performance evaluation

of a flat screen hammer mill machine

B. O. Ezurike, O. J. Osazuwa, C.A. Okoronkwo & K.I. Okoji

To cite this article: B. O. Ezurike, O. J. Osazuwa, C.A. Okoronkwo & K.I. Okoji (2018): Design,
construction and performance evaluation of a flat screen hammer mill machine, African Journal of
Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, DOI: 10.1080/20421338.2018.1491675

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2018.1491675

Published online: 19 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rajs20
African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2018.1491675
© 2018 African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development

Design, construction and performance evaluation of a flat screen hammer mill machine
1* 1
B. O. Ezurike , O. J. Osazuwa , C.A. Okoronkwo2 and K.I. Okoji1
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Madonna University, Nigeria
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria
*Corresponding author. Email: ben4oke2000@yahoo.com

The detailed design procedure for a hammermill machine is presented. The system designed is a modification to the
conventional hammer mill with a circular bottom casing and a semi-circular screen. The major problems associated with
the conventional machine are longer milling time and low efficiency as a result of the material moving alongside the
circular screen. This led to the design and fabrication of a modified hammermill machine with a flat screen. The
hammer mill is a power mill making use of a high-speed rotating disc, which is stationary to a number of hammer bars
that move superficially by a centrifugal force. The machine was made effective with a one horsepower electric motor,
and the efficiency was found to be 92.9% after testing was done with dried maize.

Keywords: hammermill, semi-circular screen, flat screen, rotating disc, maize

Introduction crops, as well as to improve their quality and quantity by

In ancient times, cereal grains were crushed between two
stones and made into crude cake. But the advent of
modern automated systems employing steel material
such as hammer mills has revolutionized the processing
of cereals and their availability as human foods and for
other purposes (Donnel 1983). Most of the existing ham-
mermill machines are designed for very large-scale pro-
duction by the multinational companies such as
breweries, feed mills and flour mills. But due to the
recent sensitization of the public on the need for self-
employment, there is an increase in small-scale compa-
nies. Thus, there is a very high demand for small-scale
hammermill machines (Adekomaya and Samuel 2014).
This project aims to alleviate the problems of farmers
in rural settlements who wish to process their grain/cereal
products but are unable to. Due to their inability to process
harvested products, they must sell them to feed mills for
further processing, thereby making little or no profits.
The primary aim of this work thus is to design a
milling machine with an efficiency well above 90%. Its
objectives are to reduce construction costs (by using
locally sourced material), enhance performance, provide
easy maintenance and, above all, increase the rate of pro-
duction of the milled product. With these objectives in
mind, a flat-screen hammermill served as the main factor
for the modification of the conventional hammer mill
with the semi-circular screen. Figure 1 below is a proto-
type of the proposed design of the flat screen hammermill
machine. The entire construction was completed using
locally sourced material, thereby making it cost effective.
The machine elements are easily accessible and detachable
to facilitate assembling and maintenance processes.
Although the machine is sufficiently rugged to function
properly for a reasonably long period, it is cheap enough
to be economically feasible.
Literature review
According to El Shal et al. (2010), the development of
animal and poultry production requires additional effort
to maintain (and even increase) high levels of feeding
ensuring grain losses are reduced before pre-processing
operations, using the proper feed in the acceptance phase
of livestock and reducing the consumed energy. The crush-
ing of crops is on the increase with the global quest for
sourcing of renewable energy through pre-processing.
Physical and mechanical properties of biomasses species
and varieties are very important when considering the
energy requirements for particle size reduction of agricul-
tural products. Of the various types of grinding equipment
available, hammer mills are the best-known equipment
used for the milling/grinding, in which the material is sub-
jected to complex forces and the resultant particles then
used for various purposes (Moiceanu et al. 2012).
Size reduction has also been shown to decrease recalci-
trance by reducing the degree of polymerization and cellu-
lose crystallinity. Importantly, size-reduction technologies
result in increased material density because smaller par-
ticles more easily fill void spaces and increase packing
density. In addition, small and relatively smoother particles
that result from comminution typically have improved
material handling characteristics and, in some cases, can
be handled very efficiently in equipment designed for
bulk grains (Yancey, Wright, and Westover 2013, 86).
As shown in Figure 2, the conventional hammermill
machine with a semi-circular screen causes more material
circulation, resulting in re-crushing of carried products by
the hammers, thereby reducing the feed rate. However, the
proposed design in Figure 3 with a flat screen does not
carry the uncrushed product and provides a larger open
area for intake. Other advantages of the proposed design
include low clogging of materials and higher feed rate.
Studies by Xuan et al. (2012), Adekomaya and Samuel
(2014), Ajaka and Adesina (2014) and El Shal et al.
(2010) show hammer mills constructed from locally
sourced material with a circular or semi-circular screen
and their efficiencies.
Materials and method
The system design shows the machine description in
which the components are grouped into three major

African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development is co-published by NISC Pty (Ltd) and Informa Limited (trading as Taylor & Francis Group)
2 Ezurike, Osazuwa, Okoronkwo, Okoji
Figure 1: Prototype of a hammermill machine.
Figure 2: Conventional hammermill with semi-circular screen.
Figure 3: Proposed hammermill with flat screen.
parts: the feeder or hopper, the top casing or housing and
the bottom casing. The bottom casing consists of a rotor
assembly in which nine rotor plates are fixed to the main
shaft enclosed in some form of grinding chamber. The
actual working mechanisms are the hammers, which are
swinging, and the flat screen or grinding plates that are
beneath the rotor. The rotor disc is welded to the shaft
and supported by bearings at both ends. This provides a
more stable running mill and reduces the tendency for a
rotor shaft to ‘wind up’. The hammers are simply flat
metal bars with a hole at one end. Particle size reduction
in a hammer mill is primarily the result of impact force
between the rapidly moving hammer and the incoming
material. There is some attrition (gradual reduction by par-
ticles rubbing) between the particles, hammers and the
screen. There are several factors that determine the effi-
ciency of the milling operation such as feed rate, screen
area, horsepower ration, screen (hole) size and open
area, tip speed, number of hammers and hammer position.
The nature and quality of the material(s) being processed
also affect the performance of the machine.
Major components of the machine
1. Electric motor
2. V belt
3. Plummer block (bearings)
4. 25 mm diameter shaft
5. Angle bar
6. Pulley
7. Flat Screen
8. Flat mild steel sheet
System design calculations
Due to the complex nature of hammermill design, knowl-
edge and skills in machine design and mechanics of
machines are of utmost importance. Materials used, and
their properties, are also of great significance. The
machine elements should be made of materials that have
properties suitable for the conditions of operation
(Khumi and Gupta 2010). Some of the factors considered
in selecting the materials used for the design of hammer-
mill machine were based on physical, mechanical and
economic properties. The design was developed with the
safety of the operator in mind. The deflection of the
hammers while in operation was also considered in the
design. Hence, swinging hammers were used to avoid
the rotor or the hammers from getting stocked in case a
hammer comes in contact with a material it cannot break
at first impact. (Ajaka and Adesina 2014, 12)
The values used in the design calculations are actual
measured dimensions of the fabricated prototype. A
shaft of 25 mm was machined and used.
Determination of shaft speed
To calculate the shaft speed, the following parameters
were measured from the constructed work and conse-
quently used (Spolt 1988):
D1 = 0.09m, D2 = 0.07m, N1 = 1725 rpm
D1 N2
= , (1)
D2 N1
where, N1, revolution of the motor pulley, rpm; N2,
 African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development 3

revolution of the shaft pulley, rpm.; D1, diameter of motor where, Wh, Weight of hammer, Mh, Mass of hammer, g,
pulley, m; D2, diameter of shaft pulley, m acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2).
Therefore, Therefore, Wh= 0.2 × 9.81 = 1.962 kg/m2

D1 × N1 0.09 × 1725
N2 = = = 2217.9 rpm Centrifugal force exerted by the hammer
D2 0.07
Centrifugal force exerted by the hammer can be calculated
from the equation below (Hannah and Stephens 1984)
Calculation of length of belt
The length of the belt was calculated from the measured MV 2
Fc = , (7)
driver and driven pulley diameters and also the centre dis- r
tance between the driver and driven pulley. The centre dis-
tance is 490 mm. The equation below was used (Patton where, M is Mass of the hammer, kg; V is Velocity of the
1980) shaft, m/s; r is the radius of the shaft, m (25 mm diameter
shaft); D1, diameter of motor pulley, m; N1, speed of

 motor, rpm
p D1 − D2 2
L = 2C + (D1 + D2 ) + , (2) The shaft velocity is calculated by equation 8, given
2 4C below as
where, L, Length of the belt, mm; C, Centre distance p D1 N 1
between shaft pulley and the motor pulley = 490 mm V= (8)
60
(measured on the fabricated machine)

 3.142 × 0.09 × 1725
3.142 90 − 70 2 V= = 8.13m/s2
[L = 2(490) + (90 + 70) + 60
2 4 (490)
Therefore, the centrifugal force is obtained below using
L = 980 + 251.36 + 0.0001 = 1231.39 mm equation (7).

0.2 × 8.132
Fc = = 1057.6 = 1.05 KN
Belt contact angle (actual values of construction materials 0.0125
used)
The belt contact angle is the angle the belt makes with the
pulley. It is given by (Hall, Holowenko, and Laughlin 1980)
Determination of tensions on the belt

 The belt drive primarily operates on the friction principle.
−1 R − r
b = sin , (3) The driver pulley on the electric motor gives motion to the
C belt that is then transmitted to the driven pulley. Due to the
presence of friction between the pulley and the belt sur-
where, R, radius of the motor pulley, mm; r, radius of the faces, tensions on both sides of the belt are not equal.
shaft pulley, mm So, it is important to identify the higher tension side

 (tight) and the lower tension side (slack). The density of
45 − 35 belt (rubber) is given as 1140 kg/m3 (Hall, Holowenko,
b = sin−1 = 1.17◦
490 and Laughlin 1980; Khumi and Gupta 2010).

The angles of wrap around each pulley are given by: T1 T1 − TC

= emu OR = emu (9)
T2 T2 − TC
a1 = 180 + 2b for motor pulley (4)
And,
a2 = 180 − 2b for shaft pulley (5)
TC = MV 2 (10)
where, α1, angle of wrap for the motor pulley, deg; α2, angle
of wrap for the shaft pulley, Also,
Therefore, α1 = 180 + (2 × 1.17) = 182. 34°
T1
a2 = 180–(2 × 1.17) = 177.66◦ TC = , (11)
3

where, T1, Tension on the tight side, N; T2, Tension on

Determination of weight of hammer the slack side, N; TC, centrifugal tension, N; μ, coefficient
The mass of the hammer was weighed to be 0.2 kg (Patton of friction between the belt and the pulley = 0.3 (assump-
1980) tion); θ, angle of wrap of the motor pulley, deg.; M, mass
of belt per unit length (width × thickness × belt density),
Wh = Mh g, (6) kg/m; V, velocity of the belt, m/s2
4 Ezurike, Osazuwa, Okoronkwo, Okoji

Figure 4: Side view of the top casing and hopper.

Figure 7: Orthographic view and isometric view of hammer.

15.68 + 40.58
15.68 = 5.176(T2 − 7.84) = = T2
5.176

Figure 5: Top view of the structural base. Hence, T2 = 10.87 N

Note: The belt used is a V belt with 13 mm width and Determination of power transmitted by the belt
8 mm thickness. The power transmitted by the belts is obtained from the
Therefore, mass of belt per unit length is calculated tensions in the tight and slack side of the belt and the vel-
below ocity of the electric motor.

Power = (T1 + T2 )V (12)

M = 0.013 × 0.008 × 1140 = 0.1186 kg/m
P = (23.52 + 10.87) × 8.13 = 279.59 W

From equation 10, centrifugal tension is

Results
TC = 0.1186 × 8.13 = 7.84 N
2 Working diagrams (all dimensions in mm)
Machine description
The parameters obtained from the system design consider-
Hence using equation 11, ation gave rise to the diagrams below. Figure 4 shows the
side view of the top casing which is semicircular and
designed with the hopper. The hopper or feeder is fabri-
3TC = T1 ; T1 = 3 × 7.84 = 23.52 N
cated to ease intake of feeds. Figures 5 and 6 show the
side and top views of the structural base; it is the main
from equation 9, support for all the components. Figure 7 is the hammer.
There are 16 all together and each is bolted to Figure 8.
The rotor disc is welded to the shaft that transfers force
23.52 − 7.84 15.68
= e0.3 ×5.48 = = 5.176 for crushing. Figure 9 is the screen or sieve that determines
T2 − 7.84 T2 − 7.84 the milled product size. The bottom casing which houses

Figure 6: Side view of the structural base.

 African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development 5

Testing
Testing was done with the use of dry maize. The products
to be milled were grouped into four samples, weighed and
fed into the hopper as the machine was switched on. The
time for milling each sample was recorded and the
produce was weighed. Averages calculated were used in
determining milling capacity, machine efficiency, and
losses during milling.
Table 1 shows that the average mass of maize before
milling was 0.4275 kg and the average mass of maize after
milling was 0.3975 kg, while the average time taken was 46s.

Determination of milling capacity

Figure 8: Top and side view of the rotor disc.
average mass of milled produced
Milling Capacity:
average time taken
(13)

Hence,

0.3975
milling capacity = = 8.59 × 10−3 kg/s
46.25
= 31 kg/ hr.

Determination of milling efficiency

mass of output material 100
Figure 9: Diagram of screen with perforated holes. Milling effieciency: × (14)
mass of input material 1
the rotor disc with hammers and screen is shown in
0.3975 100
Figure 10. Figure 11 is the exploded view of the proposed = ×
0.4275 1
hammermill machine which illustrates the various com-
ponents for assembling. Therefore, milling efficiency = 0.929 = 92.9%

Figure 10: Orthographic view of the bottom casing.

6 Ezurike, Osazuwa, Okoronkwo, Okoji

Figure 11: Exploded view of the hammermill machine.

Table 1: Test results of milled maize.

Mass of maize Of Time

Sample before Mass maize After (s)
1 0.30 0.25 34
2 0.40 0.37 43
3 0.45 0.42 51
4 0.56 0.55 57
AVERAGE 0.4275 0.3975 46.25

Determination of losses (Nasir 2005)

Figure 13: Graph of mass of maize before milling against time.

M b − Ma Again from Table 1,

Losses = , (15)
Mb
0.4275 − 0.3975
losses = = 0.07 = 7%.
where, Mb, mass before milling; Ma, mass after milling. 0.4275

Discussion
Table 1 gives the result of the measured and milled maize
which was grouped and weighed. Figures 12 and 13 show
a graphical representation of the results carried out, i.e. the

Table 2: Efficiency of each sample before milling.

Mass of maize before milling

Sample no. (Kg) Efficiency (%)
1 0.3 83.33333333
2 0.4 92.5
3 0.45 93.33333333
4 0.56 98.21428571
Figure 12: Mass of maize before and after milling.
 African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development 7
Figure 14: Milling efficiency against time.
Figure 15: Picture of the machine during fabrication.
mass of maize before and after milling and the mass of
maize before milling against time respectively. Table 2
shows the mass of mass before milling and efficiency.
Figure 14 explains the increase in efficiency against
time. The designed machine was found to have a milling
capacity of 31 kg/hr., and efficiency of 93% with 7%
losses.
Conclusion
In light of the aim and objectives earlier stated, the
attained efficiency was possible due to the screen
shape which was flat to prevent follow up of materials
with the rotor disc. The tested results showed that the
newly designed machine gave a satisfactory perform-
ance in productivity and energy consumption while
maintaining feed quality. The machine made an una-
voidable noise which was as a result of hammers crush-
ing the material on the screen during operation. The
designed machine also has room for easy maintenance
activities such as replacement of screen, hammers, and
Figure 16: Ariel view of the completed hammermill machine.
cleaning of the bottom casing. The scope of the
machine is not limited to only maize as other cereals
can be milled provided they are dried. Lastly, the fabri-
cated machine was constructed with locally sourced
material and has fewer components; hence, the purchase
price of the machine can be kept low. Figures 15 and 16
show the machine during fabrication and completed
machine, respectively.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.
ORCID
B. O. Ezurike http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1311-5355
O. J. Osazuwa http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0699-4742
References
Adekomaya, S. O., and O. O. Samuel. 2014. “Design and
Development of a Petrol-Powered Hammer Mill for Rural
Nigerian Farmers.” Journal of Energy Technologies and
Policy 4 (4): 65–72.
Ajaka, E. O., and A. Adesina. 2014. “‘Design, Fabrication, and
Testing of a Laboratory Size Hammer Mill’. Department of
Mining Engineering. The Federal University of
Technology, Akure, Nigeria.” International Journal of
Engineering and Advanced Technology Studies 2 (2): 11–21.
Donnel, H. 1983. Farm Power and Machinery. New Delhi, India:
McGraw Hill.
El Shal, M. S., M. A. Tanfik, A. M. El Shal, and K. A. Metwally.
2010. “Study the Effect of Some Operational Factors on
Hammer Mill.” Journal of Farm Machinery and power 27:
54–74.
Hall, A. S., A. R. Holowenko, and H. G. Laughlin. 1980. Theory
and Problems of Machine Design, Schaum’s Series.
New York, USA: McGraw. Hill Book Co.
 8 Ezurike, Osazuwa, Okoronkwo, Okoji
Hannah, J., and R. Stephens. 1984. Mechanics of Machine:
Elementary Theory and Examples. London: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Khumi, R. S., and J. K. Gupta. 2010. A Textbook of Machine
Design. New Delhi: S. Chand and Company Ltd.
Moiceanu, G., V. Gheorghe, G. Paraschiv, C. P. Ion, and P.
Maican. 2012. “Physical Characteristics of Miscanthus
Plant and Power Demand at Grinding Process.”
Engineering for Rural Development Jelgava 24: 222.
Patton, E. S. 1980. Mechanism Design Analysis. Prentice Hall of
India Private Ltd.
View publication stats
Spolt, M. F. 1988. Design of Machines Element. 6th ed. New
Delhi, India: Prentice Hall.
Xuan, Chuanzhong, Liying Cao, Pei Wu, Yanhua Ma, and
Ding Han. 2012. “Development on a Hammer
Mill with Separate Sieving Device.” Telkomnika
Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering 10 (6):
1381–1386.
Yancey, Neal, Christopher T. Wright, and Tyler L. Westover.
2013. “Optimizing Hammer Mill Performance Through
Screen Selection and Hammer Design.” Biofuels 4 (1): 85–
94. doi:10.4155/bfs.12.77.