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

Review of Literature

2.1 Machine performance

2.2 Economics

Material and Methods

10

3.1 Area of study

10

3.2 Selection of combine harvester

10

3.3 Material

10

3.4 Methodology

11

Results and Discussion

23

4.1 Analysis of Breakeven Point and Payback Period

27

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

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 countrys 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 150200 man-hrs/ha for harvesting of paddy alone (Veerangouda et al., 2010). The paucity of labour
1

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.
2

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.

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.

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

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 1632%. 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
6

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.
7

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.

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.

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 farmers 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 farmers 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

Least Count

Capacity

(for measurement of)

1.

Measuring tape

Linear distance

1cm

50m

2.

Measuring scale

Linear distance

1mm

15cm

0.25 gm

2 kg

3.

Weighing machine

Weight of sample

0.001 gm

600 gm

4.

Measuring cylinder

Volume of fuel

100ml

2000 ml

10

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
i.

Procedure for test

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

11

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

iii.

Fig. 3.3 Pre-harvest loss grain sample

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

12

Observer for signal

B, C

Observers for collection of straw sample

D, E

Observers for collection of sieve sample

Observer for sample of grain outlet

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

13

Fig. 3.8 Collection of straw on cloth sheet

vi.

Fig. 3.9 Discarding other material from chaff

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

14

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.)

15

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 =

Where,

W Wd
W

Mw

Moisture content on wet basis, %

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:
=

Where,

Bulk density, g/cm3

Total mass of sample, g

Total volume of sample, cm3

M
V

ii. Performance parameters:

1. Rate of work, ha/h

2. Width of cutter bar, m

area covered .
time

The width of cutter bar was determined using measuring tape.

16

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=

Where,

Speed of operation, km/h

Time needed to cover 20 m distance, sec

4. Theoretical field capacity, ha/h

TFC =

Where,

S W

TFC

Theoretical field capacity, ha/h

Average speed of travel, km/h

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 =

Where,

A
TP + T1

EFC

Effective field capacity, ha/h

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.
17

Ef =

Where,

EFC

TFC

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

Net grain output, kg/h

9.Grain throughput

Weight of grain sample

Area covered in m run

. Weight of grain sample

Avg. time for m length

Grain throughput, kg/ha

Grain throughput, kg/h

10.Straw throughput

total wt. of grain

Area covered in m run

= Grain throughput kgha Rate of work ha/h

Straw throughput (kg/ha)

Straw throughput (kg/h)

total wt. of straw

Area covered in m run
18

= Straw throughput kgha Rate of work ha/h

11. Crop throughput, ton/h

=

12. Threshing efficiency, %

=
13. Cleaning efficiency, %
=
iii. Grain losses:

Total threshed grain

Total grain

Healthy threshed grain in main outlet

Wt. of grain sample

1. Pre-harvest loss, %
=
2. Collectable losses, %

Pre harvest grain kgha

Total grain output kgha

a) Unthreshed grains from main outlet, %

=

b) Broken grain from main outlet, %

Grain throughput kgha

Broken grain
Area covered in m Grain throughput kg/ha

c) Total collectable losses, %

= Unthreshed + Broken

3. Non collectable losses, %

a) Header loss

b) Straw losses
I)

Cutterbar grain loss

Grain throughput kgha

Threshed grains, %
19

II)

Healthy threshed grain

Area in m Grain throughput kg/ha

Unthreshed grains, %
=

Unthreshed grain
m length Grain throughput kg/ha

Covered in

III)

Broken grains, %

IV)

Broken grain
Covered in m Grain throughput kg/ha

Total straw losses, %

= Threshed + Unthreshed + Broken

c) Sieve losses
I)

Threshed grains, %

II)

Unthreshed grains, %

III)

IV)

Healthy threshed grain

Area covered in m Grain throughput kg/ha

Unthreshed grain
Area covered in m Grain throughput kg/ha

Broken grains, %
=

Broken grain
Area covered in m Grain throughput kg/ha

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=

PS
L

20

Where,
D

Depreciation cost average per year

Purchase price of the machine Rs

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

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=

Where,

P+S

Average purchase price, Rs/y

Purchase price of the machine, Rs

Residual value of the machine, Rs

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).
21

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. =
3. Payback period, years

Fixed cost Rs/y

Custom Fees Rsh Operating Cost Rs/h

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 breakeven point.
P=

Initial Cost Rs

[Custom Fees Rsh Operating Cost Rsh ] x Annual Usage

22

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.

23

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

Parameter

Non-scented Variety

Pusa 1401

Pusa 1121

PR 118

PR 114

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

Crop & Field Parameters

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

73.08

79.25

85.07

75.23

83.02

83.58

76.92

84.91

86.57

69.23

79.24

82.1

0.52

0.59

0.67

0.52

0.59

0.67

0.52

0.59

0.67

0.53

0.59

0.67

Field Eff. (%)

Rate of work (ha/h)

Table 4.2 Head feed axial flow combine harvester capacity

Scented Variety

Non-scented Variety

Parameter
Pusa 1401
Speed of Operation (km/h)

Pusa 1121

PR 118

PR 114

3.5

4.0

4.5

3.5

4.0

4.5

3.5

4.0

4.5

3.5

4.0

4.5

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

Net Grain Output (kg/h)

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

Parameter

Pusa 1401
Speed of Operation (km/h)
A. Collectable loss, %
i) Unthreshed grains from main outlet, %
ii) Broken grains from main outlet, %
Total collectable loss, %
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, %

Non-scented Variety

Pusa 1121

PR 118

PR 114

3.5

4.0

4.5

3.5

4.0

4.5

3.5

4.0

4.5

3.5

4.0

4.5

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

0.34

0.42

0.45

0.41

0.45

0.48

0.38

0.40

0.45

0.44

0.47

0.63

0.18
0.25
0.01
0.44
0.78

0.20
0.19
0.02
0.41
0.83

0.25
0.18
0.05
0.48
0.93

0.21
0.14
0.03
0.38
0.79

0.22
0.09
0.04
0.35
0.80

0.29
0.07
0.08
0.44
0.92

0.20
0.17
0.02
0.39
0.77

0.22
0.15
0.05
0.42
0.82

0.25
0.14
0.09
0.48
0.93

0.23
0.02
0.05
0.30
0.74

0.25
0.01
0.06
0.32
0.79

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

Table 4.4Cost analysis of manual harvesting and threshing of paddy

Conventional Method
Cutting, bundling and loading the crop into tractor
Threshing by impact
Winnowing charges (fan hiring + labour)
Loss
Total

Cost (Rs/ha)
4000
3000
2000
2400
11400

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

Collectable Loss

3
Non Collectable
Loss

Pre-harvest Loss

Total Loss

0
18

19

20

22

Fig 4.1 Total losses in combine harvesting of paddy at different moisture contents
26

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.

27

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.

28

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--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
29

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). Technoeconomic 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 ricewheat 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

30

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

24

axial flow combine harvester

4.2

Head feed axial flow combine harvester capacity

24

4.3

Total harvesting losses with head feed axial flow combine harvester

25

for paddy
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

26

content having same cylinder speed (600 rpm)

31

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No.

Title

Page No.

Fig.1.1

Crop flow in axial flow and conventional type threshing cylinder

Fig. 1.2

Grain loss of axial flow combine harvester

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

14

grains
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

26

contents

32

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

Hour

i.e.

That is

kg

Kilogram

kg/hr

Kilogram/hour

KW

Kilo watt

kw-h

Kilowatt-hour

Meter

mg

Milligram

min

Minute

ml

Milliliter

mm

Milimeter

mt

Metric tone

No.

Number

rpm

Revolution per minute

Rs

Rupees

Second

Tones

wb

Wet basis

33

LIST OF SYMBOLS
Symbols

Meaning
Percentage

34

APPENDIX-A

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

Sr. No.
1.

Items

Value

Assumptions
(a) Initial cost (P)

Rs

20,00,000

(b) Salvage cost (10% of P)

Rs

2,00,000

(c) Service life (L)

10

(d) Annual use (X)

500

(e) Interest rate per year (I)

2.

Fixed cost
(a) Depreciation,

(b) Interest,

Rs/y

1,80,000

Rs/h

360

Rs/y

77,000

Rs/h

154

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

3.

4.

60,000

Rs/h

120

Total Fixed cost

Rs/y

3,17,000

Total Fixed cost

Rs/h

634

(a) Fuel cost

Rs/h

427.5

(b) Lubrication cost

Rs/h

128.25

(c) Repair and maintenance cost

Rs/h

400

(d) Labour wages

Rs/h

62.5

Total variable cost

Rs/h

1018.25

Rs/h

1652.25

Variable cost

Cost of operation (FC + VC)

Custom hire cost (Rs/ha) of combine harvester

35

3000

APPENDIX B

Analysis of breakeven point and payback period in paddy crop

Breakeven point in paddy crop
B. E. P. =
=

Fixed cost Rs/y

Custom Fees Rsh Operating Cost Rs/h
,

= 341h/y

, ,
Rs/h

Rs/y
. Rs/h

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 Rsh Operating Cost Rsh ] x Annual Usage

Rs

Rs/h

= 4.3 years

Rs/h ] x

36

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

37

APPENDIX- D
ISO 9001
NO:954596

SPECIFICATIONS
model
dimension

overroll length
overroll width
overroll height

engine

model
type
total displacement
Power/Revolutions
Fuel tank capacity
Crawler

center distance
width x ground contact
contact pressure

(CC)
(PS/rpm)
()
(mm)
(mm)
(kgf/cm2)

Driving system

transmission type
range
standard operating speed
the type of turn
Number of reaped crops
Reaping interval
Reaping Unit
Width of reaping cutting blade
type of reaping cutting blade
type of speed
Threshing type
diameterwidth
Threshing cylinder
revolution speed
Threshing unit
processing cylider(1) diameterwidth
processing cylider(2) diameterwidth
Sieve case(widthdiameter)
Grain discharging tank capacity
system
turning radious(degree)-turning type

Straw discharging
system

processing

(m/s)

(mm)
(mm)

(mm)
(rpm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
()

Factory specification

Micom
Grain leveling guage
Load indication
Intensive lubrication
Automatic reaping height control
Automatic threshing depth control
Automatic horizontal control of body
The other
Automatic turn control of unloader
Automatic devices
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
Multi-cutter
operating capacity
(minite/10a)

4445
1910
2635
3130
E4DE-T
Water-cooled, 4-cylinder, direct injection turbo
2955
72/2700
67
1030
4501580
0.22
HST(SERVO control)
3 stage
1.62
BRAKE-SOFT-SPIN Turn
4
1450~1500
1450
two blades sliding cutting
Speed-synchronized + Elevator (3 steps)
Half feeding, single trash drum
424900
505
140725
140100
6651550
1400(approx. 28 bags)
270-electric moter
Straw discharging separation/collection system (shooter type)

optional
optional
11~16

Dealer
Imprint Area

1422-5, Seocho-Dong, Seocho-Ku, Seoul, Korea

Tel. 82-2-3470-7454~9 Fax. 82-2-3470www.daedong.co.kr

OHSAS 18001
NO:K033008

DSM72
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(kg)

weight

ISO 14001
\NO:771475

BIODATA

Name:

Madhuri Gupta

Fathers 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:

mgupta30194@gmail.com

39

BIODATA

Name:

Moin Khan

Fathers 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:

moikhan17.hau@gmail.com

Placement Information:

Placed in Sonalika Tractors (International Tractors Ltd.)

40