with the collaboration of Iranian Society of Mechanical Engineers (ISME)

Document Type : Research Article


1 Ph.D. Candidate of Biosystem Engineering, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran

2 Department of Biosystem Engineering, Mohaghegh Ardabil University, Ardabil, Iran

3 Department of Biosystem Engineering, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran


Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is an annual plant of the legume genus that is cultivated in 109 countries due to its high-quality oil and seed protein. In Iran, this crop is cultivated on an area of 3000 hectares, with an average yield of 4 tons per hectare. Threshing performance significantly affects seed loss and physical damage, including cracking and crushing of seeds during harvest. Therefore, over the last century, extensive research has been conducted on different types of threshing methods, as well as the design and development of various threshing machines.
Research on seed crops such as cereals and seeds suggest that factors such as the rotational speed of the thresher, threshing-concave distance, feeding rate, and shape of threshing teeth play a crucial role in determining the threshing efficiency and quality of the threshed seeds. Although limited research has been conducted on peanut threshing, there are currently no combine-machines available for this crop on global markets. Therefore, this study aims to investigate several working parameters of an experimental peanut thresher, including the effect of sieve angle, sieve range of movement, and suction speed on the separation unit.
Materials and Methods
The relevant experiments were conducted in the Parsabad Moghan region of Ardabil province (latitude 39.65 North, longitude 47.91 East). To conduct the experiments and separate the seeds from the pods, we used a peanut threshing machine cultivar Nc2, which is commonly cultivated under agricultural conditions in Ardabil and Gilan Agricultural Research Centers.
To achieve the aims of this research, we investigated several effective parameters in the performance of the machine, including sieve angle, sieve movement range, and fan suction speed, to obtain the best settings for maximum threshing performance and separation efficiency. It is worth noting that the average seed weight per kilogram of peanut plant was between 300-400 grams, and the moisture content of the seeds in the tested cultivar was 45%. Before using the machine, workers must first dig up the plants and place them on the ground in a coupe, after which another worker must feed the plants into the machine through the feeder.
Results and Discussion
The study found that changes in sieve angle, sieve movement range, and suction speed significantly affect the separation efficiency and peanut loss rate at a 1% significance level. Increasing the sieving angle leads to a higher speed of material movement on the sieve, which results in insufficient time for separating straw from the seed. Similarly, increasing the sieve movement range causes a rapid decrease in cleaning efficiency. To achieve better straw-seed separation, it is necessary to apply impact shocks to the products located on the sieve within a short period. However, as the range of movement increases, the time interval between impact shocks also increases, which disrupts the straw's separation from the seed.
The study found that increasing the sieve range and suction speed leads to a higher rate of peanut loss. This is due to the fact that when the suction speed and sieve movement range are increased, the product spends less time on the sieve, which results in insufficient time for proper separation. Additionally, high speed may exceed the limit of peanut seed and cause it to move out of the machine with the straw. Increasing the sieve movement range leads to a more uniform movement of straw and seed on the sieve; however, achieving better separation of straw from the sieve requires dynamic shocks and sudden acceleration, which decreases as the sieve movement range increases. The optimal farm capacity and material capacity were achieved with a 5-degree slope at 0.55 hectares per hour and 509 kilograms per hectare, respectively, using a sieve range of 3.5 centimeters and a fan suction speed of 8 meters per second.
The study concluded that the sieve movement range has the most significant impact on cleaning efficiency, while the sieve angle has the least effect. Similarly, the sieve movement range has the most significant influence on the rate of peanut loss, while the sieve angle has the least effect.


Main Subjects

©2023 The author(s). This article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source.

  1. Abdi, R., & Jalali, A. (2013). Mathematical model for prediction combine harvester header losses. International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences (IJACS), 5(5), 549-552.
  2. Aboegela, M. A., & Mourad, K. H. (2021). Development a Locale Thresher Machine for Separating Peanut Crop. Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering, 12(3), 131-135. https://doi.org/21608/jssae.2021.158665
  3. Agricultural Jihad Statistics, Crop products. (2020). Iran.
  4. Ali, K. A. M., Zong, W., Md-Tahir, H., Ma, L., & Yang, L. (2021). Design, Simulation and Experimentation of an Axial Flow Sunflower-Threshing Machine with an Attached Screw Conveyor. Applied Sciences, 11(14), 6312. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11146312
  5. Anco, D. J., Thomas, J. S., Jordan, D. L., Shew, B. B., Monfort, W. S., Mehl, H. L., & Campbell, H. L. (2020). Peanut yield loss in the presence of defoliation caused by late or early leaf spot. Plant Disease, 104(5), 1390-1399. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-11-19-2286-RE
  6. Dobreva, I. D., Ruiz-Guzman, H. A., Barrios-Perez, I., Adams, T., Teare, B. L., Payton, P., & Hays, D. B. (2021). Thresholding Analysis and Feature Extraction from 3D Ground Penetrating Radar Data for Noninvasive Assessment of Peanut Yield. Remote Sensing, 13(10), 18-36. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13101896
  7. El-Awady, M. N., Yehia, I., Ebaid, M. T., & Arif, E. M. (2009). Development of Rice Cleaner for Reduced Impurities and Losses. Ama, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa & Latin America, 40(3), 15-29.
  8. Fu, J., Chen, Z., Han, L., & Ren, L. (2018). Review of grain threshing theory and technology. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 11(3), 12-20. https://doi.org/10.25165/j.ijabe.20181103.3432
  9. Gol, A. K., & Nada, S. K. (1991). Performance of power operated groundnut stripper. AMA, 22(3), 25-28.
  10. Guzman, J. D., Petingco, M. C., & Dom-oguen, A. D. (2019). Peanut threshing and shelling machines for community-based peanut enterprises in developing countries. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers conference, Boston, Massachusetts July 7- July. https://doi: 10. 10.13031/aim.201901368
  11. Huynh, V. M., Powell, T., & Siddal, J. N. (1981). Threshing and separating process- A mathematical model. Transactions of the ASAE, 25(1), 62-73. https://doi: 10.13031/2013.33478
  12. Karlen, D. L., Birrell, S. J., Johnson, J. M., Osborne, S. L., Schumacher, T. E., Varvel, G. E., & Nafziger, E. D. (2014). Multilocation corn stover harvest effects on crop yields and nutrient removal. BioEnergy Research, 7(2), 528-539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-014-9419-7
  13. Kaul, R. N., & Egbo, C. O. (1985). Introduction to Agricultural Mechanization. First edition. Macmillan Education Ltd. London. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-014-9419-7
  14. Mahmood, Y., Rao, G., Singh, P., & Chaudhary, H. (2019). Design Modification for Anti-choking Mechanism in Thresher Machine. Springer Singapore, 585-593. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8597-0_50
  15. Pishgar-Komleh, S. H., Keyhani, A., Mostofi-Sarkari, M. R., & Jafari, A. (2013). Assessment and determination of seed corn combine harvesting losses and energy consumption. Elixir Agriculture, 54(2013), 12631-12637.
  16. Reddy, K. M., Kumar, D. V., Reddy, B. R., & Reddy, B. S. (2013). Performance evaluation of groundnut thresher for freshly harvested crop. International Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 6(1), 67-70.
  17. Senthilkumar, T., Jesudas, D. M., & Asokan, D. (2017). Performance Evaluation of Self-Propelled Groundnut Combine. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, 48(1), 76-89.
  18. Srinivasan, M., Sai, S. N., Alexander, A., Prabhakaran, N., Gokul, C., & Visalaxi, G. (2021). Development of peanut separator and thruster. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1055/1/012053
  19. Taghinazhad, J., & Rahmani, S. (2023). Technical evaluation of three methods of manual, semi-mechanized and mechanized peanut harvesting in Moghan. Journal of Agricultural Machinery, 13(2), 239-247. (in Persian). https://doi.org/10.22067/jam.2022.74048.1079
  20. Vennela, B., Ramana, C., Ramana, M. V., Reddy, S. J., Kalleemullah, S., & Kumari, K. L. (2018). Studies on Harvesting and Threshing Parameters of Available Tractor Operated Groundnut Digger-Shaker and Fresh Pod Thresher. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 7(11), 3517-3525. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.711.401