FABRICATION OF A PROTOTYPE IN-VESSEL COMPOSTING MACHINE FOR

MULTI-HOUSEHOLD ORGANIC WASTES

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Lifestyles adapt to the pattern of development as it progresses, and if this tendency

continues, exploitation of the planet's resources will intensify. Every resource utilized to make

something will result in waste generation. As development advances in the Philippines,

population also expands, and it is common knowledge that population has a direct impact on

waste output.

The NSWMC (National Solid Waste Management Commission) calculated that the

country's waste generation climbed consistently from 37,427.46 tons per day in 2012 to

40,087.45 tons in 2016, with an estimated average per capita waste generation of 0.40 kg per day

for both urban and rural areas. Organic wastes make for 52 percent of discarded garbage,

followed by recyclable waste at 28 percent, and residuals at 18 percent. [1] Organic wastes are

generated primarily from food and yard wastes. If nothing is done, today's wastes will continue

to grow in bulk, and even if they are all collected, they will wind up in dumpsites or landfills,

which demand vast amounts of space and money. If not collected, this will result in unattractive

piles as well as contamination of the soil and water. As a result, the necessity to discover an

alternative to landfill for organic wastes has prompted this research.

Composting is the most effective and is lately been pushed as a long-term and

ecologically friendly alternative for managing and recycling organic solid wastes, with the

objective of generating a nutrient-rich soil amendment known as compost. Compost has proven

to have many benefits aside from reduction of the amount of wastes that would go to landfills. It
improves soil health, reduces the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere and

strengthens ecosystems' resistance to increasing temperatures, promotes healthy plant growth and

suppresses plant diseases and lastly, it helps to reduce soil erosion in a number of ways,

including by binding soil together, increasing infiltration, and slowing the surface flow of water.

[2]

Traditional composting associate problems such as long duration which leads to nutrient

losses along the process, frequent aeration requirements and more effort. As a result, the

researchers studied and fabricated a composting machine for multiple household use that can

speed up the process of turning organic wastes into compost, reducing people's reliance on

landfills, dumpsites, incinerators, and other non-environmental-friendly waste disposal methods.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

To be able to reduce the number of solid wastes especially organic that will end up in

landfills, dump sites and even on open grounds, every household must practice composting.

Since traditional composting, would take longer durations which also causes nutrient losses

along the process, consumes effort, requires frequent aeration, the researchers developed a

mechanized in-vessel composter to hasten the process of decomposition. Moreover, the

researchers will focus on answering the following questions:

1. How would the researchers design a composting machine that can minimize the

number of days of composting process of agricultural wastes?

What are the specifications in designing the machine to be built?

 2. How much of these organic wastes can this machine turn into compost? How

acceptable is the product of the designed machine?

3. What are the features and advantages of the fabricated machine compared to the

traditional way of composting?

4. How acceptable is the level of functionality of the fabricated machine prototype

in terms of performance, features, dependability, durability, compliance, serviceability,

aesthetics, and perceived quality?

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The researchers aim to carefully design and fabricate a multi-household-use composting

machine prototype that can help each and every household convert their day to day organic

wastes into compost. Moreover, this study aims to attain the following objectives:

1. To fabricate a quality composting machine with the right specifications, that can

speed up the process of composting.

2. To determine the capacity of the designed machine in intaking organic wastes and

to determine the quality of the output that the machine has produced

3. To identify the features and advantages of the fabricated machine and compare it

to the traditional way of composting

4. To evaluate the overall functionality of the composting machine with the help of

the local farmers, agricultural experts and machine design experts.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This research and the fabricated machine would be useful for the following:

Local Community

This study can be beneficial for the community and it would be more effective to set up

several of this fabricated composting equipment in the neighborhood to handle the organic

wastes that can be turned into compost. In this way, it will lessen the volume of day to day solid

wastes that will be collected by the dump trucks and will be transferred into landfills and dump

sites. Another benefit would be the compost material that is produced by the equipment as this

cuts down the use of synthetic fertilizers which plant growers in the community would have to

spend more money on.

Local Government

According to Dumaguete City Hall, the city generates 70-80 tons of waste every day,

resulting in an overflowing dumpsite in Barangay Candau-ay that endangers people's health and

well-being. As a result, the local administration has already received three closure orders from

the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (DENR). for its dumpsite. The city

was fined P2.5 million in 2010 for failing to close the dumpsite despite notices, and the current

government may now be sued for failing to create a landfill. [3] This research can help the local

government solve its solid waste disposal problem.

Negros Oriental State University (NORSU)

 The project study was implemented by this academic institution in order for the students

to apply the theories and knowledge learned and design a machine that can help the community’s

development. This would help the institution gain recognition by producing young innovators

who contribute researches essential to society. The success of this study can benefit the

university such as partnership from the City government and local departments like Department

of Agriculture and Department of Science and Technology

Researchers

Future researchers interested in the conceptualization and fabrication of agricultural

compost machines can use this study as a reference. This study can be useful to other researchers

whose goal is to improve upon the current accessible resources in the composting process.

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

The study is focused on the design and fabrication of a composting machine prototype to be

used by households. The compost machine will involve a shredder and an agitator. This machine

is limited to the shredding of semi hard to soft organic waste materials which then goes down to

the vessel that holds the agitator. The designed machine is limited to gauging the performance on

how fast it can decompose the raw materials as compared to the manual composting method. The

study is only limited to the creation of compost solely from the decomposed raw materials,

which means addition of other chemicals and inoculants is excluded. The composter is a

prototype and the expected dimensions will not be large enough to cover huge amounts of

organic waste but it can be scaled up for communal use when there is a budget in the future.
 CHAPTER 2

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 THEORY BEHIND THE DESIGNED ORGANIC WASTE COMPOSTING

MACHINE

Every city in the Philippines is always battling garbage disposal, with biowaste

accounting for a large portion of Municipal Solid Wastes and the residential sector

being the primary contributor. Included in these residential wastes are the food and

organic wastes. When organic waste is put in landfills, it undergoes anaerobic

decomposition and creates methane owing to a lack of oxygen. Methane is 20 times

more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide when discharged into the

atmosphere. [30]

The "Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000," also known as

Republic Act No. 9003, was enacted on January 26, 2001, to address the country's

growing solid waste problem. It establishes the legislative foundation for the

country's systematic, comprehensive, and environmentally sound solid waste

management program, ensuring public health and environmental protection. It also

establishes the required institutional institutions, such as the National Solid Waste

Management Commission (NSWMC), which will oversee the implementation of

solid waste management plans and prescribe policies and incentives to meet the

Act's objectives.
 On the other hand, the current industrial agriculture system encourages the use of

agrochemicals, such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, while ignoring the harmful

repercussions on local economies, human health, and the environment. Fertilizer applications in

the Philippines increased by 1000 percent between 1961 and 2005, while rice and maize yields

increased by only 200 and 280 percent, respectively, and pulse yields remained about the same.

In general, the overuse and misuse of chemical fertilizers in crop soils results in land

degradation and loss of soil fertility all over the world. Furthermore, agrochemicals pollute

water, affecting human health both directly and indirectly. Agricultural practices, such as animal

waste, fertilizer, and pesticide runoff, account for 37 percent of total water contamination [27]

Water pollution caused by nitrates from fertilizer runoff is more extensive than previously

assumed in the Philippines.

With the environmental hazard posed by the widespread and inefficient use of inorganic

fertilizers, which has resulted in land degradation and a major loss of soil fertility, policymakers

have pushed for balanced fertilization and organic agricultural adoption. This led to the creation

of various policies and laws in the Philippines that maintains the cleanliness, land management,

soil fertility and food security in the country.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10068 (Philippine Organic Agriculture Act of 2010)

This Act states that the State's policy is to promote, propagate, further develop, and apply

organic agriculture in the Philippines in order to enrich soil fertility, increase farm productivity,

decrease pollution and environmental degradation, and prevent natural resource depletion. The

Act establishes a comprehensive organic farming program, as well as a National Organic

Agricultural Board to implement the policy and program. The document specifies the Board's

composition, organization, and powers and functions. The Board must constantly invent and

execute new and improved methods for manufacturing organic fertilizers and other farm inputs,

as well as assisting in the reduction of industrial waste and municipal rubbish disposal.

One of the highlighted critical components for the institutionalization of a comprehensive

organic agricultural program is research and development for ongoing research and upgrading of

relevant technology.

Through the Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry, and Natural Resources

Research and Development (PCARRD), the Philippine government launched a national

campaign to expose Filipino farmers to quick composting technology and the use of compost as

fertilizer. This technology's compost is now included in fertilization recommendations for rice

and other crops.

In the second phase of the program, commercial businesses, farmers' cooperatives, and

non-governmental groups were aided to construct compost production units. Some of the

production steps were mechanized as part of the initiative. Farmers were given 50 kg sacks of the

compost generated.

It is recommended that the following procedures be mechanized in large-scale

commercial compost production. a) Substrate chopping and b) Mixing/Turning – it is easier to

combine substrates or turning heaps when there are numerous tons of substrate. c) Before drying,

a hammer mill should be used to break up large lumps of mature compost. d) During wet

months, it is more cost-effective to dry compost manually rather than trying to dry it in the sun.
[17] Because of the following procedures, this has led the researchers to design and fabricate a

modified composting machine.

2.2 DETERMINATION OF ORGANIC COMPOSTING MACHINE POWER

REQUIREMENT, DIMENSIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF SHAFTS,

BEARINGS AND BOLTS

POWER REQUIREMENT

The Researchers can calculate the horse power at shaft 1 for the calculation of the

horsepower of the shaft 2 and for the total power transmitted at shaft 1 using the

equation,

2 πTN
P1 =
60

Where:

P1 = Horsepower at shaft 1

T = Torque

N = Revolution per minute

The Researchers can determine the horsepower at shaft 2 for the calculation of the

total power transmitted at shaft 1 using the equation,

P2 = P1 (loss in gears)

Loss in gears = (Loss per pair of spur gears 2%) + (Loss in the mesh of gear 1%)

DESIGN OF TRANSMITTING GEAR

According to Doughtie and Vallance [9], the specifications needed to select the

transmitting gear can be determined through the following equations,

Diametral Pitch
 Tg
DP =
PD

Where:

DP = Diametral pitch

Tg = No. of teeth of gear

PD = Pitch diameter

Circular Pitch

πPD
CP =
Tg

Where:

CP = Circular pitch

Tg = No. of teeth of gear

PD = Pitch diameter

Pitch Velocity

V = 2 πRN

Where:

V = Pitch velocity

R = Radius of gear

N = RPM of gear

Tangential Force at Pitch Line

33000 H P
Ft =
FsV

Where:
 Ft = Tangential force at pitch line

Hp = Transmitted power

Fs = Service Factor

V = Pitch line velocity

Spur Gear for Wear

The load limit for wear is expressed [9],

DpfSⅇ ω sinsin ϕ 2 ⊤9
( )
2
−1 1
Fw = x x +
1.4 Tp+Tg Ep Eg

Where:

Sew =Surface endurance limit

Tg = Number of teeth of the gear

Tp = Number of teeth of the pinion

Ep = Modulus of elasticity for pinion

Eg = Modulus of elasticity for gear

Dp = Diametral pitch

f = Face width

Weight of Gear
2
ρ πD g f
Wg =
4

Where:

Dg = Diameter of pinion

f = Face width

ρ = Density of the pinion material

THE LEWIS EQUATION

 π s Y
F = sfyp = sfy = f
P P

Where:

Y = πy

Ft = Force transmitted

S = Stress

f = Face width

y and Y = Lewis’ form factor

p and P = circular and diametral pitch

According to Doughtie and Vallance, this equation was first developed by Wilfred

Lewis and is used, with some modifications, for the determination of the strengths of

all types of gears.

From this equation, the researchers can calculate the face width of transmitted gear

[9].

F t P ( 600+ v )
Fg =
SwY ( 600 )

Where:

Fg = Face width of the gear

Ft = Force transmitted

P = Diametral pitch

v = Pitch line velocity

Sw = Working stress

Y = Lewis’ form factor

EARL BUCKINGHAM EQUATION

As stated by Doughtie and Vallance, a new equation was proposed from Earl

Buckingham’s “Analytical Mechanics of Gears”, based upon the determination of

the effective mass acting at the pitch line of gears, acceleration load, separation of

profiles and impact loads, for the determination of the dynamic load. However, the

method presented here will be that introduced in 1932, because at the present it is

more widely used [9]. Thus, the total maximum instantaneous load on the tooth or

dynamic load, is

0.05 v ( C f + Ft )
Fd = Ft + Fi = Ft +
0.05 v + ❑√Cf + F t

Where:

Fd = Total equivalent load applied at pitch line

velocity or dynamic load

Ft = Tangential load required for power

transmission

Fi = Increment load (variable load)

C = A factor depending upon machining errors

N = Pitch line velocity

f = Face width

DESIGN OF THE SHAFTS

Solving for the Maximum Torque,

 2 πTN
Hp =
33000

Where:

Hp = Transmitted power

T = Maximum torque

N = RPM of the shaft

Required Diameter of the Shaft

According to Spotts [20], the diameter of the line shaft can be calculated using the

equation below.

ASME CODE

0.5 σ yp 16 ❑
τ max=
Fs √ 2
= 3 = ( C m M ) + ( Ct T )
πd
2

Where:

τ max= Maximum shear stress

σ yp = Yield point stress

Fs = Factor of safety

D = Diameter of the shaft

M = Maximum moment

T = Maximum steady torque

Cm = Shock and fatigue factor for bending

 Ct = Shock and fatigue factor for torque

Bearing for the Shaft

From the equation recommended by Doughtie and Vallance [9], the catalog rating

that is needed for the selection of the bearing can be calculated,

Fc = (KaKl) Ko Kp Ks Kt Fr

Where:

Fc = Catalog rating of bearing

Fr = Actual radial load on the bearing

Ka = Application factor

Kl =
√
3 Ha
H c KrⅇI
, Life factor

Ha = Desired life of bearing

Hc = Catalog rated life

Krel = Reliability factor

Ko = Oscillating factor

Kp = Preloading factor

Ks = 3
√ k r Na
Nc
, Speed factor

Na = Rotational speed of bearing

Nc = Catalog rated rotational speed

Kr = Rotational factor
Kt = Thrust factor
Problems arising from municipal solid
waste management and agricultural
system

Ecological Solid Waste

Management Act of 2000

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10068 (Philippine

Organic Agriculture Act of 2010)

Design Calculations, Material Selection

and Fabrication of Prototype In-Vessel
Composting Machine

Output
Evaluation of the Prototype Machine and
Compost produced

Figure 2.3.1 Theoretical Framework of the Study

 CHAPTER 3

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RELATED STUDIES

RELATED LITERATURE

Household Wastes

Biowaste per capita generation in a household of 3–9 persons range from 0.04 to 0.31

kg/day, with a weighted average of 0.1122 kg/day. A five-person household can generate an

average of 0.55 kg per day, of which 46 percent is food scrap, followed by kitchen waste-

vegetables and fruits (41 percent), kitchen waste-raw meat and fish (4 percent), yard/garden (5

percent), and wet papers (4 percent). The size of the family has a positive association with

household generation but a negative link with per capita generation. [4]

People in a barrio (village) in Manila, Philippines, share their household garbage

management experiences and techniques. The information was acquired through an open-ended

conversation with family members. Interviews with garbage collectors and scavengers were also

done. The families produced an average of 3.2 kg of solid trash per day, or 0.50 kilogram per

capita per day, according to the findings. Food/kitchen wastes, papers, PET bottles, metals, and

cans, boxes/cartons, glass bottles, cellophane/plastics, and yard/garden wastes are all common

wastes. PET bottles, glass bottles, and miscellaneous garbage are separated by the respondents

(mixed wastes). No respondents perform composting. It is worth emphasizing, however, that the

responders do not burn their waste. [5]

 Composts

Food waste accounts for a significant portion of all municipal garbage produced, and its

disposal in landfills has serious environmental consequences. Citizens are pressuring local and

national governments to manage their trash handling demands on a daily basis, but the manner in

which waste is managed is increasingly under scrutiny, with citizens demanding that it be done

in an environmentally friendly manner. [18] Furthermore, as the world's population grows, land

accessible for landfills becomes increasingly scarce, forcing local governments to extend the life

of their existing landfills rather than incur the cost of purchasing and constructing a new one.

Composting is the most efficient and proven approach for bringing dying soils back from

the brink of extinction. Composting also minimizes the amount of solid waste generated

naturally and as a result of the large population. [3] Composting has recently been promoted as

an environmentally benign and long-term solution for managing and recycling organic solid

wastes, with the goal of producing a high-quality organic product known as compost that can be

utilized as an organic amendment in agriculture.[3] Compost enhances the soil's ability to

support plant growth by increasing organic matter content, improving physical characteristics,

and supplying important nutrients when combined with soil. The breakdown process must be

accelerated to manage enormous volumes of agricultural wastes. The waste microorganisms are

given an environment that allows them to grow quickly and break down the trash at maximum

efficiency. The difference between natural decomposition and composting is that composting

takes place in a controlled environment. The conditions under which the decomposition occurs

are controlled by a person [16].

 Enclosed or In-vessel Composting

This is a revolutionary technology that has piqued the interest of numerous composters

and researchers. It is far more advanced than other composting processes. The system is

contained within a container or tank. There is an exhaust outlet for the discharge of toxic gases

and odors, which are filtered by biofilters installed at the exhaust unit. To maintain a constant air

flow rate, aeration is done by rotating the container or using aeration pumps. Because the system

is completely enclosed, moisture is conserved within it, decreasing the need for water. A

moisture content of 40-60% is optimal [11].

The two types of in-vessel composting systems are plug flow and agitated bed. The

interaction between particles in the composting mass remains constant throughout the process in

a plug flow system, and the system operates on the first-in, first-out principle. During the

composting process, the composting material is mechanically combined in an agitated bed

system. Mechanical systems are meant to control environmental parameters such as ventilation,

temperature, and oxygen concentration in order to reduce odor and process time. Because of the

odor control, faster processing, cheaper labor costs, and compact footprint requirements, the

popularity of in vessel systems is growing. The time spent in the tank varies from 1 to 2 weeks,

although most systems use a 4- to 12-week curing period following the active composting period

[21].

Composter Shredders

Finer particles disintegrate faster than larger particles, according to scientific evidence.

This necessitates pulverization, which increases the surface area of the waste materials by

thousands of times, exposing vast areas to microorganism response. Course leaves, garden and
agricultural trash are suitable for shredding. Twinges, little branches, flower stalks, straw, tree

pruning, and so on are examples [13].

Composter Helical Agitator

An agitator is installed in the vessel to ensure that the contents in the vessel become

uniform and homogeneous and remain in a proper mixed state. The blades of the helical agitators

are arranged in a structure of helix. The appearance is similar to how a threaded screw looks.

The motion of the shredded material in this type of agitator is also axial in nature due to the way

the blades or the ribbons move while helical agitator is in operation [31].

RELATED STUDIES

Virginia Cuevas’ study focused on Rapid Composting Technology, which was

developed by inoculating plant substrates with cultures of the cellulose decomposer fungus

Trichoderma harziamum. Compost fungus activator is a fungus that grows in a substrate of

sawdust mixed with ipil leaves (CFA). The decay process requires favorable conditions, such as

sufficient moisture, an optimum beginning C:N ratio of substrates, and aeration. The composting

time is cut in half, to just four weeks. It is stated how this technique was transferred to Filipino

farmers through a National Program. Constraints in technology transmission are discussed, as

well as the economic benefits of using compost processed using this technology and other

benefits attributed to the technology [5].

 Jeevee Greg Azores’ study, the “Automatic Drum Composter for Household Use” is a

machine that is composed of motored blender in a vessel. The design parameters were obtained

by calculations, followed by the identification and selection of materials, all while taking into

account considerations such as material suitability, availability, and cost. To maintain optimum

microbial activity and growth, the composting process followed the carbon-to-nitrogen ratios of

22 to 40.

Jevee Azores’ Automatic Drum Composter

The food waste was 30%, the green organic waste was 20%, and the brown organic waste was

50% in the drum composter. From the first day until the compost was ready to exit, the

temperature, moisture content, and pH levels were all monitored. The compost was estimated to

be exited from the drum in 20 days. Through series of tests, the machine was able to turn the raw

organic wastes into composts. Several results were gathered from the experimentation such as

odors were eliminated, composting time was reduced from 30 down to 20 days, maintaining the

correct temperature, pH level and moisture content was easy since the substrate is contained in a

vessel, and the compost provided nutrients for growing plants [4].
 Similarly, Villafuerte, Ivy et.al, designed and fabricated a shredder that would help the

local farmers and local fruits and vegetables in Dumaguete dispose their leftover and excess

harvests. This machine was also designed for easier composting of organic wastes. The machine

prototype's construction included design conceptualization, specification, and consideration, as

well as the selection of appropriate fabrication materials based on cost and availability. The next

step was material procurement, followed by machine fabrication and assembly. Physical and

biological examinations of the product were used to evaluate the machine's performance.

Different tests involving different sets of organic components were undertaken in terms of

functionality. The hardness and size of these organic compounds varied. The type of material

placed into the shredder can be used to determine the capacity of the manufactured shredding

machine. The circular ones with small diameters of less than 2 inches can easily be shredded,

whilst the larger loads with smooth textures slip against the blades. The organic wastes, which

are the machine's principal purpose, were simply shredded. The 4 kg of organic wastes that were

gradually added took only around 5 minutes to shred. As a result, they determined that the

shredder can process roughly 48 kg of organic waste each hour, with shredded bits measuring

approximately 6 to 10 mm in diameter [1].

Adlao, Villafuerte and Revelegia’s Organic Waste Shredding Machine

Ajinkya s. Hande et al. completed a project on “Methodology For Design & Fabrication

of Portable Organic Waste Chopping Machine” as part of their research. The organic waste is

supplied in a consistent manner through the feeding drum and tray. The chopping drum is then

rotated at 1440 rpm by an electric motor via pulleys, causing the waste to be sliced by the impact

shear action derived from the shearing blades. Because of the tensile, friction, and impact effects

in the chopping process, the cut is also made inside the chopping house. The sliced pieces then
flowed through the sieve's concave openings and exit the machine. Sieves with various hole sizes

was also used [2].

Portable Organic Waste Chopping Machine

S.Nithyananth et al. have created a waste shredding machine design. The waste

shredder machine is a device that shreds rubbish as though it were a ploughing attachment. A

tractor with a power take-off shaft can be used to operate the shredder (PTO). The tractor's

power – 35 HP and up – is transferred to the shredder unit. One fixed blade and five circular

blades make up the Assembly. The shredded organic waste will be in small bits so that the

farmer can use it to manufacture vermin compost [19].

 Cross-sectional View of Waste Shredding Machine

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Agitation - the act of stirring things up

Bearing - a mechanical element that decreases friction between moving parts by restricting

relative motion to only the desired motion.

Compost - a mixture used for fertilizing and conditioning land that is mostly made up of

degraded organic materials.

Decomposition - the process of breaking down dead organic matter into simpler organic or

inorganic stuff such carbon dioxide, water, simple sugars, and mineral salts.

Fabrication - is a method of constructing products by combining typically standardized parts

with one or more distinct procedures.

Hopper - A device that feeds material into a machine.

Inoculants - biofertilizers or plant growth promoters

- biopesticides and plant resistance stimulants.

Likert Scale - A rating scale that assesses how individuals feel about something and is

commonly found on survey forms or questionnaires. It can be beneficial in a variety of scenarios.

Moisture - the ratio of the mass of the liquid to the total mass of both liquid and vapor.
Organic waste- is generated by home consumption patterns such as food scraps, vegetable litter,

fruit litter, grass, and leaves, all of which can be composted to produce useable compost.

Prototype - the foundation or model upon which something is built.

Shaft - a common machine component for transmitting rotary motion or torque

Spot Welding - a resistance welding in which the current and pressure are restricted to portions

of the metal surfaces in contact.

 CHAPTER 4

THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The development of the prototype of the composting machine started with the Design

Conceptualization and Consideration. The researchers made the calculations for the correct

motor speeds and power requirement for the agitator and shredder, design of the agitator’s and

shredder’s shafting, bearings and bolts. Next was the selection of materials which the researchers

must consider the material Appropriateness, Cost, and Availability in which they should be

appropriate for the design, are affordable, and are readily available in the researchers’ local area.

Then, the researchers proceeded with the fabrication process which includes metal cutting,

drilling, milling, lathe machining, grinding and welding. The only work that was done in a

machine shop was the fabrication of gears. After the completion of all mountings of the

prototype and the machine was ready, the researchers started the operation and then a series of

tests and evaluations were made after.

In order to accomplish the objectives in the fabrication of the organic composting

machine, this research used two approaches which were the experimental and descriptive design.

The descriptive design was through conducting surveys and assessment from evaluators to know

their comments and suggestions, while the experimental design was applied to identify the

technical aspects and statistical significance of the designed prototype.

4.1 FLOW OF STUDY

Conceptual Framework
4.2 DESIGN CONCEPTUALIZATION

The conceptualization of the design and elements of the composting machine were

envisioned with the inspiration of previous designs created by other researchers. The design of

the machine is the integration of the organic shredder machine and the in-vessel agitator creating

a 2 in 1 composting machine. The design parameters are also specified and carefully considered

with the assistance of calculations performed by the researchers with the use of several pieces of

literature including the Machine Design and theories related to the subject of study. These

various parameters were chosen with the design's stated problems and objectives in mind. The

following information and the figures depicted are the design views and the foundation for the

actual generation of the designed machine.

DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES OF THE PROTOTYPE
ISOMETRIC VIEW
TOP VIEW
ISOMETRIC BOTTOM VIEW

BOTTOM VIEW
 SIDE VIEW SKELETAL VIEW

4.3 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND FORMULAS

Gear Calculations

Motor Specifications:

1hp running at 1720 rpm

Torque at motor

P1
T= × 33,000× 12 ⅈ n
2 πN

T =36.64265 ⅈ n ⋅ lb

Power at shredder shaft 1

Power motor = power of shredder shaft 1

p1=1 h p

Power at shredder shaft 2

p2= p1 (1 – loss in gears), loss in gears = 2%

¿ 1 h p (1 – 0.02 x1 h p )

= 0.95 hp

Total Power Transmitted

Np=1720 rpm

Pitch diameter, pd =65∨2.55906∈¿

Outside diameter, Od =70 mm∨2.75591∈¿

Number of Teeth, Tg= 16

Diametral Pitch, Dp

Tg 16
Dp= = =6.252 ≈ 6 teet h/¿
pd 2.55906

Circular Pitch, Cp

πPd π (2.55906)
Cp= = =0.50249∈¿ teet h
Tg 16

Pitch Line Velocity

v=2 πRN

N= 1720 rpm

2.55906
R= ¿
2

v=2 π ( 0.1066 ft )( 1720 rpm )

v=1152.0346 ft /min

Tangential Force at Pitch Line

33,000 P
Ft =
0.65 v

p1=1 h p

v=1152.0346 ft /min

33,000( 1h p)
Ft =
0.65 (1151.0346 ft /min)

Ft =44.0692 lb
Face Width

ft
Ft = 44.0692 lb V=1152.0346
min

Dp= 6 teeth/in

Y =0.255

Ft ( Dp ) (600+ v )
fw =
800 Y (6000)

Dynamic Load on Gear Tooth

Total maximum instantaneous load on tooth

Fd=Ft+Fi

¿
= Ft =0.05 v cf + Ft ¿
0.05 v+ ❑√ cf + Ft

C = 1600

f = 0.3791322

v= 1152.0346 ft/min

33,000(HP )
Ft =
v

33,000(1 h p)
¿
1152.0346 ft /min

= 28.64497 lb

Fd = 28.64497 + 0.05(1152.0346)¿ ¿
Fd = 470.54365 lb

Spur Gear for Wear

Dpf sew2 sin sin θ 2 Tg 1 1

Fw= × ( + ¿
1.4 Tp+Tg Ep Eg

Sew- surface endurance limit, 90,000 psi from table 11-7. Fatigue limits of gear
materials for gray cast iron (Daughtie and Vallance, p.275)

Tg= number of teeth of the gear

Tp= number of teeth of the pinion

Ep = modulus of elasticity for pinion, 12 ×106 psi ¿

table 2−1 General properties of commonly used material for cast iron (daughtie and
vallance, p.11)

Eg = modulus of elasticity for gear, 12 ×106 psi ¿ for cast iron

6 x 0.3791322 x 9000 0 2 x sin sin14.5 2 x 16 1 1

Fw= × ( 6
+ 6
¿
1.4 16 x 16 12×10 12× 10

Fw = 549.2212045 lbs

Weight of Gear 1 and Gear 2

W g=W 2 =ρ v̇=0 ⋅ 256 ()

1b π
ⅈn 4
( 2.55906 )2 ( 0.3791322 )
 = 0.4992079 lbs

DESIGN OF SHREDDER SHAFT 1

56.2mm = 2.2126 in; 58.9mm= 2.3189 in

12.5mm= 0.4921 in; 40.9mm= 1.6102 in

Horizontal Forces Acting on Shaft 1

Cutter Diameter, D= 4in

P=1hp N= 1720 rpm

P
T= × 33,000× 12 ⅈ n
2 πN

1h p
×33,000 ×12 ⅈ n = 36.64264969 lb·in
2 π (1720 rpm)

T 36.64265
F= = =18.321325lb
r 4∕2

F 18.321325
Force per Cutter = =1.14508 lb/ cutter
16 16

a = 4 in-2.51968 in

=1.48032 in

b = r-a

=4 in - 1.48032

=0.51968 in

b
cos cos ϕ=
r
 ϕ =74.93943°

α = 180- ϕ

= 105.06057°

θ = α-90°

= 15.06°

At Point B (Gear)

FHB = Ft tan tan θ

= 28.64497 lb tan tan 14.5

= 7.4081 lb

At Point C to R

FHc to FHR = F cos cos θ

= 1.14508 cos (15.06)

= 1.40097 lb

Horizontal Components

∑ Ma=0

Rs (13.5232) = FHB (2.2126) + FHC [ n

2
( 2 a1 +( n−1 ) d ) ]
a 1= 4.5315 n=16 d=0.4921

Rs (13.5232) = FHB (2.2126) + FHC [ 131.556 ]

Rs = 14.84095 lb

∑ Fy = 0

Ra = 7.4081 + 16(1.40097) – 14.84095

= 14.98267 lb

Table #. Horizontal Components of

Shredder Shaft 1

E Sh

C ea

T r

I Fo Mo

O Lo rc men

N ad e t

14 14

.9 .9

82 82

A 67 67 0

B - 7. 33.1

7. 57 506
 40 45 556

81 7 4

1. 50.7

40 6. 153

09 17 260

C 7 36 2

1. 4. 53.7

40 77 533

09 26 545

D 7 3 8

1. 3.

40 37 56.1

09 16 019

E 7 6 658

1. 1. 57.7

40 97 611

09 06 596

F 7 9 8

G - 0. 58.7
 1.

40 56 309

09 97 362

7 2 3

- -

1. 0. 59.0

40 83 112

09 12 954

H 7 5 5

- -

1. 2. 58.6

40 23 022

09 22 373

I 7 2 2

- -

1. 3. 57.5

40 63 037

09 31 618

J 7 9 6

K - - 55.7

1. 5. 158

40 03 690

09 41 6
 7 6

- -

1. 6. 53.2

40 43 385

09 51 589

L 7 3 2

1. - 50.0

40 7. 718

09 83 314

M 7 61 5

- -

1. 9. 46.2

40 23 156

09 70 866

N 7 7 4

- -

1. 10 41.6

40 .6 701

09 38 244

O 7 04 9

P - - 36.4

1. 12 351
 40 .0

09 39 450

7 01 1

- -

1. 13 30.5

40 .4 107

09 39 481

Q 7 98 9

- -

1. 14 23.8

40 .8 969

09 40 340

R 7 95 3

14 14

.8 .8

40 40

S 95 95 0

Vertical Forces Acting on Shaft 1

At point B

FVB = Ft + wg

= 28.64497 lbs + 0.4992079 lbs

 = 29.1441779 lb

At point C to F

FVC to FVR = FV + Wc

Wc = ρ cVc = 0.284
lb Π
ⅈn 3( )
4
( 4 ⅈ n )2 ( 0.070866 ⅈ n )

= 0.25291 lb

FV = Fsin sin θ = 1.48032 sin (15.06)

= 0.384632 lb

FV to FVR = 0.384632 + 0.25291

= 0.6375 lb

Vertical Components

∑ Ma=0

Rs (13.5232) = FVB (2.2126) + FVC [ n

2
( 2 a1 + ( n−1 ) d ) ]
a 1= 4.5315 n=16 d=0.4921

Rs (13.5232) = FVB (2.2126) + FVC [ 131.556 ]

Rs = 10.970137 lb

∑ Fy = 0
Ra = 28.3740409 lb

Table #. Vertical Components of

Shredder Shaft 1

E Sh

C ea M

T r o

I Fo m

O Lo rc en

N ad e t

A 28. 28 0

37 .3

40 74
 40 04

9 09

29. - 62

14 0. .7

41 77 80

77 01 40

B 9 37 3

- 60

- 1. .9

0.6 40 94

37 76 53

C 5 37 2

- 60

- 2. .3

0.6 04 01

37 51 83

D 5 37 4

- 59

- 2. .2

0.6 68 95

37 26 42

E 5 37 21
 -

- 3. 57

0.6 32 .9

37 01 75

F 5 37 30

- 3. 56

0.6 95 .3

37 76 41

G 5 37 46

- 54

- 4. .3

0.6 59 93

37 51 90

H 5 37 4

- 5. 52

0.6 23 .1

37 26 32

I 5 37 64

J - - 49

0.6 5. .5

37 87 57
 01 65

5 37 6

- 46

- 6. .6

0.6 50 68

37 76 96

K 5 37 2

- 43

- 7. .4

0.6 14 66

37 51 55

L 5 37 4

- 39

- 7. .9

0.6 78 50

37 26 43

M 5 37 2

- 36

- 8. .1

0.6 42 20

37 01 59

N 5 37 6

O - - 31
 9. .9

0.6 05 77

37 76 04

5 37 7

- 27

- 9. .5

0.6 69 19

37 51 78

P 5 37 35

10 22

- .3 .7

0.6 32 48

37 63 80

Q 5 7 7

10 17

- .9 .6

0.6 70 64

37 13 11

R 5 7 59

S 10. 10 0

97 .9
 70

01 13

37 7

Table # Data Load for Shredder Shaft 1

T VER

I TICA HORIZO RESUL

O L NTAL TANT

N (lbs) (lbs) (lbs)

28.37

4040 32.0868

A 9 14.98267 602

29.14

4177 30.0709

B 9 7.4081 6691

0.637 1.53919

C 5 1.40097 5631

0.637 1.53919
D 1.40097
5 5631
 0.637 1.53919

E 5 1.40097 5631

0.637 1.53919

F 5 1.40097 5631

0.637 1.53919

G 5 1.40097 5631

0.637 1.53919

H 5 1.40097 5631

0.637 1.53919

I 5 1.40097 5631

0.637 1.53919

J 5 1.40097 5631

0.637 1.53919

K 5 1.40097 5631

0.637 1.53919

L 5 1.40097 5631

0.637 1.53919

M 5 1.40097 5631

0.637 1.53919

N 5 1.40097 5631

0.637 1.53919

O 5 1.40097 5631

P 0.637 1.40097 1.53919

 5 5631

0.637 1.53919

Q 5 1.40097 5631

0.637 1.53919

R 5 1.40097 5631

10.97 18.4552

S 0137 14.84095 8929

Table # Data for Moment on Shredder Shaft 1

I VERTI HORIZON RESULT

O CAL TAL (lb- ANT (lb-

N (lb-in) in) in)

A 0 0 0

62.780 33.150655 70.99538

B 4029 64 687

60.994 50.715326 79.32450

C 53221 02 6

D 60.301 53.753354 80.78201

 83404 58 728

59.295 56.101965 81.62951

E 42212 8 458

57.975 57.761159 81.83817

F 29645 68 304

56.341 58.730936 81.38601

G 45704 23 017

54.393 59.011295 80.25602

H 90387 45 637

52.132 58.602237 78.43490

I 63695 32 329

49.557 57.503761 75.91208

J 65628 86 022

46.668 55.715869 72.67908

K 96186 06 961

43.466 53.238558 68.72907

L 5537 92 279

39.950 50.071831 64.05642

M 43178 45 282

36.120 46.215686 58.65651

N 59611 64 844

31.977 41.670124 52.52552

O 04669 49 513
 27.519 36.435145 45.66024

P 78353 01 833

22.748 30.510748 38.05803

Q 80661 19 407

17.664 23.896934 29.71673

R 11594 03 683

S 0 0 0

Design of Shaft

τ max = 8000 psi then reduced to 75% due to introduction of keyway

Torque

T = 36.64265 lb·in

Max Resultant Moment (At point E)

Mmax = 81.622951458 lb·in

Shock and Fatigue Factor: Cm = 1.5; Ct= 1.0

Using ASME CODE:

0.5 σyp 16 ❑
τ max=
FS
=
πD
√
C M ) 2+ ( Ct τ )2
3 ( m

16 ❑
8000 (0.75) = √¿ ¿ ¿
π d3

d = 0.4769366892 in (standard to ¾ in shaft)

DESIGN OF SHREDDER SHAFT 2

107 mm = 4.212598 in; 52.65 mm= 2.072835 in

12.5 mm= 0.4921 in; 85.45 mm= 3.3642 in

Horizontal Forces Acting on Shaft 2

Cutter Diameter, D= 4in

P=0.98 hp N= 1720 rpm

P
T= × 33,000× 12 ⅈ n
2 πN

0.98 h p
×33,000 ×12 ⅈ n = 35.909797 lb·in
2 π (1720 rpm)

T ¿
F= =35.909797 lb·∈ ¿
r 4
∈¿=17.954899 lb¿
2
Force per Cutter =

F 17.954899 lb
= =1.196993223lb /cutter
15 15

a = 4 in-2.51968 in

=1.48032 in

b = r-a

=4 in - 1.48032

=0.51968 in

b
cos cos ϕ=
r

ϕ =74.93943°

α = 180- ϕ

= 105.06057°

θ = α-90°

= 15.06°

At Point B (Gear)

FHB = Ft tan tan θ

 = 28.64497 lb tan tan 14.5

= 7.4081 lb

At Point C to R

FHc to FHQ = F cos cos θ

= 1.19699 cos (15.06)

= 1.15588 lb

∑ Ma=0

Rr (16.539397) = FHB (4.212598) + FHC [ n

2
( 2 a1 +( n−1 ) d ) ]
a 1= 6.285433 n=15 d=0.492126

Rr (16.539397) = FHB (4.212598) + FHC [ 145.954725 ]

Rr = 12.08710648 lb

∑ Fy = 0

Ra = 7.4081 + 15(1.15588) – 12.08710648

= 12.659184 lb

Table # Horizontal Components of

 Shredder Shaft 1

E M

C o

T Sh m

I ear e

O For n

N Load ce t

12.

65

12.65 91

A 9184 84 0

5.2 0

- 51 5

7.408 09 3

B 09 4 2

C - 4.0 6
 4

95 4

1.155 21 6

88 4 3

2.9 5

- 39 9

1.155 33 4

D 88 4 4

E - 1.7 6

1.155 83 7
 .

45 5

88 4 7

0.6 4

- 27 3

1.155 57 4

F 88 4 2

G - - 6

1.155 0.5 8

88 28 .

30 8
 6

6 8

- 0

1.6 8

- 84 9

1.155 18 3

H 88 6 2

I - - 6

1.155 2.8 7

88 40 .

06 7

6 7

2
 1

- 5

3.9 0

- 95 8

1.155 94 7

J 88 6 9

K - - 6

1.155 5.1 4

88 51 .

82 4

6 0

1
 0

- 8

6.3 9

- 07 0

1.155 70 1

L 88 6 9

M - - 5

1.155 7.4 8

88 63 .

58 7

6 6

6
 8

- 0

8.6 3

- 19 7

1.155 46 3

N 88 6 9

O - - 5

1.155 9.7 0

88 75 .

34 8

6 5

8
 1

- 9

10. 5

- 93 0

1.155 12 4

P 88 26 1

- 4

12. 6

- 08 9

1.155 71 4

Q 88 06 1
 12.

08

12.08 71

R 7106 06 0

Vertical Forces Acting on Shaft 2

At point B

FVB = Ft + wg

= 28.64497 lbs + 0.4992079 lbs

= 29.1441779 lb

At point C to F

FVC to FVQ = FV + Wc

Wc = ρ cVc = 0.284
lb π
ⅈn 3( )
4
( 4 ⅈ n )2 ( 0.070866 ⅈ n )

= 0.25291 lb

FV = Fsin sin θ = 1.19699 sin (15.06)

= 0.3110 lb

FV to FVR = 0.3110 lb + 0.25291

= 0.56391 lb

Vertical Components
 ∑ Ma=0

Rr (16.539397) = FVB (4.212598) + FVC [ n

2
( 2 a1 + ( n−1 ) d ) ]
a 1= 6.285433 n=15 d=0.492126

Rr (16.539397) = FVB (4.212598) + FVC [ 145.954725 ]

Rr = 12.39937 lb

∑ Fy=0

Ra = 29.1441779 + (15x0.56391) - 12.39937 = 25.2034579 lb

Table # Vertical Components of Shredder

Shaft 1

c Mo

Load e ment

25.20345 2 0

79 5

.
 2

- 0 106.

29.14417 7 1720

79 2 36

4 98.0

6 0357

-0.56391 3 4
 -

8 95.7

5 8684

-0.56391 4 6

2 93.2

4 9261

-0.56391 5 70

-0.56391 - 90.5

6 2089

3
 6

2 87.4

-0.56391 7 7166

4 84.1

1 4493

-0.56391 8 1

-0.56391 - 80.5

7 4070

8
 0

4 76.6

5 5897

-0.56391 2 3

5 72.4

9 9974

-0.56391 1 4

-0.56391 - 68.0

9 6301

. 4

8
 2

3 63.3

7 4878

-0.56391 3 5

7 58.3

6 5705

-0.56391 4 5

-0.56391 - 53.0

1 8782

1 6

.
 2

5 47.5

4 4109

-0.56391 6 58

9 41.7

3 1686

-0.56391 7 6
 1

12.39937 7 0

Table # Data Load for Shredder Shaft 2

I RESU

O VERTICAL HORIZON LTAN

N (lbs) TAL (lbs) T (lbs)

28.204

A 25.2034579 12.659184 06406

30.070

B 29.1441779 7.40809 96445

1.2860

C 0.56391 1.15588 99943

 1.2860

D 0.56391 1.15588 99943

1.2860

E 0.56391 1.15588 99943

1.2860

F 0.56391 1.15588 99943

1.2860

G 0.56391 1.15588 99943

1.2860

H 0.56391 1.15588 99943

1.2860

I 0.56391 1.15588 99943

1.2860

J 0.56391 1.15588 99943

1.2860

K 0.56391 1.15588 99943

1.2860

L 0.56391 1.15588 99943

1.2860

M 0.56391 1.15588 99943

1.2860

N 0.56391 1.15588 99943

O 0.56391 1.15588 1.2860

 99943

1.2860

P 0.56391 1.15588 99943

1.2860

Q 0.56391 1.15588 99943

17.315

R 12.39937 12.087106 96107

Table # Data for Moment on Shredder Shaft 2

I RESULT

O VERTICA HORIZON ANT (lb-

N L (lb-in) TAL (lb-in) in)

A 0 0 0

106.172036 118.8123

B 3 53.3280532 839

64.2127046 117.1664
C 98.003574
3 284
 95.7868455 66.2279594 116.4528

D 8 4 334

93.2926170 115.2533

E 4 67.6744057 626

68.5520434 113.5491

F 90.5208884 2 695

87.4716596 68.8608725 111.3243

G 4 8 505

84.1449307 108.5654

H 8 68.6008932 269

67.7721052 105.2609

I 80.5407018 7 277

76.6589727 66.3745087 101.4010

J 1 9 528

72.4997435 64.4081037 96.97740

K 1 6 272

61.8728901 91.98276

L 68.0630142 9 166

63.3487847 58.7688680 86.41092

M 8 7 747

58.3570552 55.0960373 80.25658

N 4 9 374

O 53.0878256 50.8543981 73.51521

 8 639

47.5410958 46.0439504 66.18308

P 4 1 82

41.7168659 58.25731

Q 8 40.6646941 073

R 0 0 0

Design of Shaft

τ max = 8000 psi then reduced to 75% due to introduction of keyway

Torque

T = 35.909797 lb ·in

Max Resultant Moment (At point E)

Mmax = 118.812389 lb·in

Shock and Fatigue Factor: Cm = 1.5; Ct= 1.0

Using ASME CODE:

0.5 σyp 16 ❑
τ max=
FS
=
πD
√
3 ( m
2
C M ) + ( Ct τ )
2

16 ❑
8000 (0.75) = √¿¿¿
Π d3

d = 0.536378 in (standard to ¾ in shaft)

Design of Bearing

Bearing Design in use-Deep Groove

Max Radial Load = 30.07096445 lbf

Fc= (KaKL) Ko Kp Ks Kt Fr

KaKL = 1.65-1 (agriculture)

KaKL = 1.325

Ko = 1.0 (constant rotation)

Kp = 1.0 (no pre-loading)

[ ]
1
K N 3
Ks= r a (Na= 1720 rpm for line shaft)
Nc

Kr =1.0 since inner race rotates and outer race is fixed

[ ]
1
1.0(1720 rpm) 3
Ks=
500 rpm

K s =1.509568

Kt =1.0 (no thrust load)

Fc = (KaKL) Ko Kp Ks Kt Fr

Fc = (1.325) (1.0) (1.0) (1.509568 ) (1.0) (30.07096445 lbf)

Fc = 60.14728795 lb

For Fc = 60.14728795 lb, the catalog force is below that of the standard

catalog force of the standard SAE bearings, thus the researchers matched the bearing
bore to the shaft diameter to be used for the assembly, also considering the bore of

the wood saw blades which is 20mm so it’s most appropriate to use a pillow block

that is near or equal to the mentioned bore diameter.

The researchers used the UCP 204 pillow block having a 20mm shaft bore

and 17 mm max bold diameter bore.

Bolt Calculations (Pillow Block)

PILLOW BLOCK

Bolt Material: Grade 2, Low Carbon Steel, Fs= 25

The whole bolt body is threaded: Coarse thread

σ y =57,000 psi
P

For the Max Vertical Force on the Bolt

R y =29.1441779lb

τ yp (σ ¿ ¿ y P ) F
τ xy = =0.5 = ¿
FS FS 2 AS

F ( FS)
A S=
2 ( 0.5 )( σyp )

29.1441779 lb ( 25 )
A S=
2 ( 0.5 )( 57,000 psi )

A S = 0.012782534 ⅈ n 2
For the Max Horizontal Force on the Bolt

R x =12.659184 lb

τ yp (σ ¿ ¿ y P ) F
τ xy = =0.5 = ¿
FS FS 2 AS

F ( FS)
A S=
2 ( 0.5 )( σyp )

12.659184 lb ( 25 )
A S=
2 ( 0.5 )( 57,000 psi )

A S=5.552273684 x 10−3 ⅈ n2

Final Minimum A S=0.012782534 ⅈ n2

Nearest Stress Area for 0.012782534 ⅈ n2 is 0.0242 ⅈ n 2, TPI = 20, D= 0.216 in (safe
nominal diameter)

We referred to the table for standard 200 series pillow blocks, under SAE 204,

S1=15mm which is the maximum diameter of the bolt that can be fitted in this

certain pillow block. Thus, the chosen bolt is still less than S 1 value (D< S1). For

availability purposes, the researchers used a bigger size bolt but still less than the S 1

value. The researchers used a ¼- 20UNC-2A having a stress area of A S=¿ 0.0318
2
ⅈn .

Welding of Shredder Blades

15 shredder blades on shaft 2 and 16 on shaft 1

Weld specifications:

t = 1/16 in

d = 20 mm, r = 0.3937007874 in

R = 2 in (radius of the shredder blade)

Tr
τ torsion=
J

τ direct = 0 (since the blades are inserted on the shaft)

T = PR

( )
2
L 2
J = 2A +r 1 ; r1 = 0 since the location for shear is located at the center of gravity
12

2 πrt
A=
√2
❑

J = 2 x2π ¿¿ [ ¿¿

J = 0.1109418682 in4
τ torsion = P ¿ ¿ = 7.097424873P

0.5 σ y
τ torsion = P
= 7.097424873P
Fs

0.5(60,000 psi)
P=
4 (7.097424873)

P = 1056.721295lbf (Total Load P that the welded joints of the shredder blades can
carry)

Solving for the Maximum force F experienced by the welded joints.

63,000 h p 63,000(1 h p)
T= =
1720 1720

T = 36.62790698 in. lbf

T 36.62790698∈. lbf
F= =
R 2∈¿¿

F = 18.31395349 lbf (force applied each blade)

Since P > Force applied, the welding joints are safe

DESIGN OF AGITATOR SHAFT

Design of agitator shaft

D = 50 cm (outside diameter of the coil/helix)

 Agitator blades are manufactured from flat bars welded together to form a
double helical blade.

Total length of a double coil, double helix blade when uncoiled is given by the
formula,

L = 2[ 2 (2 πr ) ]

L = 8 π (25)cm=628.3185307 cm

L = 247.3695003 in

According to the catalog for commercial flat bars:

ρ = 7.87 g/cc

ρ = 0.287lb/in3

W=ρxAxL

A = (2in x 3/16 in) (cross-sectional of the flat bar used)

W = 0.287 lb/in3 (2 in x 3/16 in) (247.3695003 in)

W = 26.62314247lbf

Treating the helical blades as a uniformly distributed load along its

horizontal length.

Solving for the intensity of the uniformly distributed load along the horizontal
length.

W
ω=
Horizontal lengt h of t h e blade

26.62314247lbf
ω= = 0.7661335963 lbf/in
34.75∈¿¿

ω = 0.7661335963 lbf/in

Maximum force on each rod support of the helical blade due to the torque:
Power = 1.5 hp

N = 1720 rpm reduced

Using a Gearbox reducer with a ratio of 1:25

1720rpm
N’ =
25

N’= 68.8 rpm (Agitator Shaft rpm)

Solving for the Torque experienced by the shaft:

P = 2 πTN ’

63,000(Hp) 63,000(1.5)
T= =
N' 68.8

T = 1373.546512 in. lb

1373.546512∈. lb
F=
25 cm¿ ¿

F = 139.4968 lbf

F/4 = 34.8742 lbf (tangential force in each rod)

Load Diagram:
∑ MB = 0

34.75
RA (37.75 in) = W ( +1.5 ¿∈¿ + 34.8742(5.84375) + 34.8742 (14.53125) +
2
34.8742 (23.21875) + 34.8742 (31.90625)

= [26.62314247 lbf (18.875 ¿ 34.8742(5.84375) + 34.8742 (14.53125) +

34.8742 (23.21875) + 34.8742 (31.90625)] / 37.75 in

RA = 83.05997124 lbf

∑ Fy = 0

RB = W + 34.8742(4) - RA

RB = 26.62314247 lbf + 34.8742lbf (4) – 83.05997124 lbf

RB = 83.05997123 lbf

Shear equation:

[VB]L = RA = 83.05997123 lbf

[VC]L = 83.05997123 lbf – 0.7661335963 lbf/in (4.4375 in)

[VC]L = 79.6602534 lbf

[VD]L = 83.05997123 lbf – 0.7661335963 lbf/in (13.03125 in) – 34.8742 lbf

[VD]L = 3.327892815 lbf

[VE]L = 83.05997123 lbf – 0.7661335963 lbf/in (21.71875 in) – 2(34.8742 lbf)

[VE]L = -3.327892815 lbf

[VF]L = 83.05997123 lbf - 0.7661335963 lbf/in (30.40625) – 3(34.8742 lbf)

[VF]L = -44.85787843 lbf

[VG]L = 83.05997123 lbf - 0.7661335963 lbf/in (34.75) – 4 (34.8742lbf)

[VG]L = -83.05997124 lbf

Moment Equation:

[MA]L = 0

[MB]L = 83.05997123 lbf (1.5in)

[MB]L = 124.5899568 in. lb

[MC]L = 83.05997123 lbf (5.84375) – 0.7661335963 lbf/in (4.34375in) (

4.3437 5∈ ¿ ¿
2

[MC]L = 478.1539397 in. lb

[MD]L = 83.05997123 lbf (14.53125in) – 0.7661335963 lbf/in (13.03125 in) (
13.03125∈ ¿ ¿ – 34.8742 lbf (8.6875 in)
2

[MD]L = 838.9456897 in. lb

[ME]L = 83.05997123 lbf (23.21875 in) – 0.7661335963 lbf/in (21.71875 in) (

21.71875∈ ¿ ¿ – 34.8742 lbf (17.375 in) – 34.8742 lbf (8.6875in)
2

[ME]L = 838.8456896 in. lb

[MF]L = 83.05997123 lbf (31.90625) - 0.7661335963 lbf/in (30.40625 in) (

30.40625∈ ¿ ¿−¿ 34.8742 lbf (26.0625 in) - 34.8742 lbf (17.375 in) – 34.8742 lbf
2
(8.6875 in)

[MF]L = 478.1539397 in. lb

[MG]R = 83.05997123lbf (1.5 in)

[MG]R = -124.5899568 in. lb

¿
[MF]L = 83.05997123 lbf (36.25) - 0.7661335963 lbf/in (34.75 in) ( 34.75∈ 2 ¿−¿
34.8742 lbf (30.40625 in) - 34.8742 lbf (21.71875 in) – 34.8742 lbf (13.03125 in) –
34.8742 lbf (4.34375in)

[MF]L = 124.5899568 in. lb

[MH]L = 83.05997123 lbf (37.75) - 0.7661335963 lbf/in (34.75 in) (

34.75∈ ¿ +1.5 ¿−¿ 34.8742 lbf (31.90625 in) - 34.8742 lbf (23.21875 in) – 34.8742
2
lbf (14.53125 in) – 34.8742 lbf (5.84375 in)

[MH]L = 0
 x−1.5
Mmax = RA (x) - 0.7661335963 lbf/in (x-1.5) ( ¿ – 34.8742 (x – 5.84375) –
2
34.8742 (x-14.53125)

Mmax = 83.05997123 lbf (18.875 in) - 0.7661335963 lbf/in (18.875 in -1.5) (

18.875−1. 5
¿ – 34.8742 (18.875 in – 5.84375) – 34.8742 (18.875 in -14.53125)
2

Mmax = 846.1734569 in. lb

Shear diagram:
Moment Diagram:

Motor specifications:

Power = 1.5 hp

N = 1720 rpm reduced

Using a Gearbox reducer with a ratio of 1:25

1720rpm
N’ =
25

N’= 68.8 rpm (Agitator Shaft rpm)

Solving for the Torque experienced by the shaft:

P = 2 πTN ’

63,000(Hp) 63,000(1.5)
T= =
N' 68.8

T = 1373.546512 in. lb

Using ASME CODE: Shock and Fatigue Factor: Cm = 1.5; Ct= 1.0

Agitator shaft has no keyway thus, the maximum permissible shearing stress is
given by

τ max = 8000psi

16 ❑
τ max=8000=
πD
3 √ 2
( C m M ) + ( Ct T )
2

[ ]
1
16 ❑
D=3

π (τ max ) √ 2
( C m M ) + ( Ct τ )
2 3

[ ]
1
16
D=
π (8000 psi)
√
❑
( 1.5 x 846.1734569∈. lb )2 + ( 1.0 x 1373.546512∈.lb )2 3

D = 1.059878613 in (minimum required diameter for the shaft)

Bearing Calculations:
Radial Load = 83.05997123 lbf

Design of Bearing

Deep Groove type

Fc= (KaKL) Ko Kp Ks Kt Fr

Based Table 9-6, Typical combined application- life factors Ka x Kl

For agricultural equipment applications the range value is between 0.65 – 1.0

KaKL =0.65-1.0; the researchers used the average value of = 0.825

KaKL = 0.825

Ko = 1.0 (constant rotation)

Kp = 1.0 (no pre-loading)

[ ]
1
Kr Na 3
Ks= (Na= 57.33333333 rpm for line shaft) (Nc= 500rpm)
Nc

Kr =1.0 since inner race rotates and outer race is fixed

[ ]
1
1.0(57.33333333 rpm) 3
Ks=
500 rpm

K s =0.4858241087

Kt =1.0 (no thrust load)

Fc = (KaKL) Ko Kp Ks Kt Fr

Fc = (0.825) (1.0) (1.0) (0.4858241087 ) (1.0) (83.05997123 lbf)

Fc = 33.29084261 lbf

D = 1.1811in (30mm)
 The appropriate UCP 200 series pillow block that has a shaft diameter
nearest to the required shaft diameter is the UCP 206 with a shaft diameter of 30
mm.

Thus, the researchers used a 1.5-inch shaft ground/machined to 30mm to be fitted to

the pillow block.

For horizontal forces:

Material is a Grade 2- Low carbon steel, Fs= 22

σ y =57,000 psi
P

τ yp= 0.5(σ ¿ ¿ y P )¿

τ yp F
=
Fs 2 A S

F = 139.4968 lbf

F (Fs) 139.4968lbf (22)

As = =
2(0.5 σ y ) 2(0.5)57,000 psi
P

As = 0.05384087018 in2

For vertical forces:

Material is a Grade 2- Low carbon steel, Fs= 22, Whole body is threaded: Coarse
Thread bolts

σ y =57,000 psi
P

τ yp= 0.5(σ ¿ ¿ y P )¿

τ yp F
=
Fs 2 A S
F = 139.4968 lbf

σx = 0

The acting vertical forces tend to pull the shaft downward, since the bearing
is mounted on a frame the bearing bolts do not experience any compressive stress.

We chose a bolt that would fit the bolt bore on the UCP 206 pillow block, based on
the table for standard UCP 200 series pillow block the bolt bore/maximum bolt that
can be fitted for the UCP 206 pillow block is in the size of 17 mm, based on the
table for standard Unified and American National Threads the column for Coarse
threads the nearest bolt diameter that would fit on the pillow blocks would be a

5
in 11 UNC-2A bolts that have a stress area of (Ar = 0.226 in 2). Thus, the
8
researchers used a 5/8 in 11 UNC-2A bolts for the pillow blocks that support the
agitator shaft.

Welding of the Agitator

Calculation of safe load P based on maximum force that the welded joints can carry.

Weld specifications:

t = 1/8 in

D = ¾ in, r = 0.375 in

σy Mc
σ x= P
=
Fs I

Pr
M=
4

R = 25 cm (radius of the rod welded to the shaft)

R= 9.842519685 in
Π
I =2∫ ❑ ⅆ A ( r sin sin θ )
2

r ⅆθ
dA =
8 ❑√ 2
π
I =2∫ ❑
0
( r8ⅆ√ θ2 ) r θ
❑
2

π
r3
=
4 ❑√ 2
∫❑ θ ⅆ θ
0

Identities:

1
θ= ( 1−cos cos 2θ )
2
π π
I=
r3 1
4 √2 2 0
❑ ()
( ∫ ❑−∫ ❑cos cos 2 θ ⅆ θ)
0 ⅆθ

(( ))
π
r3 1
= ❑ θ− sin sin 2θ
8 √2 2 0

(( )( ))
3
r 1 1
= ❑ π − sin sin 2 π − 0− sin sin 0
8 √2 2 2
 3
r
¿ ( ( π−0 )−( 0−0 ) )
8 ❑√ 2

π r3
I= ❑
8 √2

Welding rod used is a E6013

σ y = 60,000 psi
P

Fs = 4

9.842519685 P r
Mcσy 3 60,000
σ x= = = P
πr =
Fs I 4( ❑ ) 4
8 √2

( ) ( )
3 2
πr π (0.375)
60,000 ( 4 ) ❑ 60,000 ( 4 )
P= 8 √2 = 8 ❑√ 2
4 ( 9.842519685 ) 4 ( 9.842519685 )

P = 238.0413374 lbf (maximum Load the welded joints can carry)

Solving for the Maximum force F experienced by the welded joints.

T = Fr

T 1373.546512∈. lb
F= =
r 9.842519685∈¿ ¿

F = 139.5523256 lbf

Since P > Force applied, the welding joints are safe

DESIGN SUMMARY

ELEMENTS SPECIFICATIONS
 Shredder Motor 1 hp, 1720 rpm single phase

Agitator Motor 1.5 hp, 1720 rpm single phase

Shredder Shaft 3/4 in, commercial shaft

Agitator Shaft 1.5 in commercial shaft machined

to 30 mm

Shredder Pillow Block UCP 204, Bore diameter: 20mm,

Bolt size: M10, Bearing number:
SAE 204

Agitator Pillow Block UCP 206, Bore diameter: 30mm,

Bolt size: M14, Bearing number:
SAE 206

Shredder Bolts 1/4in 20 UNC-2A, Ar = 0.0318 in2

Agitator Bolts 5/8 in 11 UNC-2A, Ar = 0.226 in2

4.4 MATERIAL SELECTION

 The materials used in the manufacturing of the design are presented in this part in a

tabular format, which is illustrated below. The application as well as simple drawings for each

material utilized are also provided.

Table #: Materials Used in the Fabrication of the Machine

Materials Description Illustration

Single Phase Electric Serves as the main power

Induction Motor supply of the machine.

Angle Bar Used for the machine frame

for it is firm enough to carry
the machine load.

Steel Shaft Used for the machine’s

driven shaft especially for
agitator and shredder.

Bolts and Nuts Primarily used for joining

most of the parts and
components of the machine
on its frame.
 Fabricated Gear used to transmit rotary
motion from one shaft to
another

Pillow Block Bearing Used to support the driven

shaft when it turns during
operation

galvanized sheet/ steel plate used to fabricate the

shredder’s housing.

Table # shows the list of materials used in the fabrication of the machine. It includes the name of

material, purpose, and their specific illustration. The selection of material to be used is based on

the recommendation of the fabricator, availability of the materials and according to the financial

capabilities of the researchers.

According to the table, every material has its own use and application. The Motor serves as the

main power supply of the machine. The angle bars are used for the machine frame for it is firm

enough to carry the machine load. Steel shaft is used for the machine’s driven shaft. Steel plate is

used to fabricate the shredder’s housing Bearing is used to support the driven shaft when it turns

during operation. Two fabricated gears are used to transmit rotary motion from one shaft to

another. And lastly, the bolt and nut are for joining most of the parts and components of the

machine on its frame.

The table shows the cost of materials in building this project

Material Cost
The table shows the cost of materials in building this project.

Table #: Cost of Material

s P Q D Dimensi C
/ a u e ons o
n r a s s
t n c t
t r
i i (
t p p
y t e
i s
o o
n s
o )
f
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
1 M 1 S 1 hp ₱
o p i
t c n 2
o g ,
r l 9
e 9
P 0
h .
a 0
s 0
e
M e
o a
t c
o h
r

2 M 1 S 1.5 hp ₱
o p i
t c n 3
o g ,
r l 1
e 9
P 0
h .
a 0
s 0
e
M e
o a
t c
o h
r

3 R 1 G 1:30 ₱
e p R
d c 5 3
u 0 ,
c 3 1
t 0 2
i 5
o .
n 0
 0
G
e e
a a
r c
b h
o
x

4 U 2 H 3/4x1 ₱
n e
i p a 3
v c v 9
e s y 0
r d .
s u 0
a t 0
l y
c e
J r a
o o c
i s h
n s
t j
o
i
n
t

5 U 1 H 5/8x1 ₱
n p e
i c a 3
v v 9
e y 0
r d .
s u 0
a t 0
l y
c e
J r a
o o c
i s h
n s
 t j
o
i
n
t

6 F 2 A 3/16 x 1 ₱
o n 1/2
r p g 6
c l 0
F s e 0
r b .
a a 0
m r 0
e
e
a
c
h

7 F 1 A 3/16 x 2 ₱
o n
r p g 7
c l 7
F e 0
r b .
a a 0
m r 0
e
e
a
c
h

8 P 4 U 20mm ₱
i C diameter
l p P 2
l c 2 0
o s 0 0
w 4 .
0
B 0
l
 o e
c a
k c
h
(
s
h
r
e
d
d
e
r
)

9 P 2 U 28.575m ₱
i C m or 1
l p P and 2
l c 2 1/8in 5
o s 0 diameter 5
w 6 .
0
B 0
l
o e
c a
k c
h
(
a
g
i
t
a
t
o
r
)

1 M 1 G ₱
0 e a
t p s 8
a o 0
 l c li 0
n .
D e 0
r D 0
u r
m u e
m a
c
h

1 I 3 H 4’’ ₱
1 n 2 i diameter
g p g 2
c c h 5
o S 0
p .
W e 0
o e 0
o d
d S e
t a
S e c
a e h
w l
M
B a
l t
a e
d r
e i
a
l
(
g
o
o
d
w
e
l
d
a
 b
il
it
y
)

1 G 1 1 2400mm ₱
2 . m x
I s m 1200mm 1
h t ,
P e h 4
l e i 5
a t c 0
i k
n o n p
r e e
S s r
h “ s
e R s
e I h
t T e
A e
S t
O
’

1 S 1 1.5 in F
3 h p C Shaft r
a c o e
f m e
t m
e (
( r d
a c o
g i n
i a a
t l t
a s e
t h d
o a )
r f
) t
(
 m
il
d
s
t
e
e
l
)

1 S 1 C 3/4in ₱
4 h p o shaft
a c m (1meter) 5
f m 2
t e 5
r .
( c 0
s i 0
h a
r l e
e s a
d h c
d a h
e f
r t
) (
m
il
d
s
t
e
e
l
)

1 G 2 C 70mm ₱
5 e p o OD
a c m (16T) 2
r m ,
e 8
M r 0
e c 0
 t i .
a a 0
l l 0
m /
e
t s
a e
l t

o
f

t
w
o

1 C 6 s Medium ₱
6 r p t size
e c e 6
s s e 5
t l .
0
L 0
o
c e
k a
c
( h
t
o
g
g
l
e

l
o
c
k
)

1 R 2 R 1L ₱
e p e
7 d c d 1
s 2
O 9
x .
i 0
d 0
e
e
a
c
h

1 P 2 P 42mmx8 ₱
8 o p W 2mmx48
w c - mm 3
e s 3 6
r 1 7
5 .
P B 0
u 0
s (
h 1 e
5 a
B a c
u m h
t p
t s
o )
n

S
w
i
t
c
h

1 L 1 ½ 3.5 ₱
9 i p meters
q c d 1
u i 8
i a 7
d m .
 e 5
T t 0
i e
g r p
h h e
t o r
s
F e m
l e
e t
x e
i r
b
l
e

C
o
n
d
u
i
t

2 B 2 5 HT HB ₱
0 o 1 / 5/8 x 2
l p 8 1
t c i 6
s n .
1 7
1 5
U
N e
C a
- c
2 h
A

2 W 1 W BI P/W ₱
1 a 4 a 5/8 (B)
s p s 2
h c h .
e s e 7
r r 0

e
a
c
h

2 B 1 1 MS HB ₱
2 o 2 / 1/4 x 2
l p 4 5
t c i .
s n 6
2 0
0
U e
N a
C c
- h
2
A

2 W 1 W TIN ₱
3 a 2 a P/W
s p s 12MM 1
h c h .
e s e 8
r r 0

e
a
c
h

2 N 2 5 HT HN ₱
4 u 1 / 5/8
t p 8 5
c N .
s u 4
t 0
 e
a
c
h

2 N 1 1 MS HN ₱
5 u 2 / 1/4
t p 4 0
c i .
s n 8
N 0
u
t e
a
c
h

2 D 4 W ₱
6 e p e
v c l 9
c s d 8
o j .
n o 5
i 0
( n
s t e
t r a
e e c
e i h
l n
f
d o
e r
v c
c e
o m
n e
) n
t

TOTAL ₱
 3
0
,
1
6
6
.
6
0

LABOR COST

THIS TABLE SHOWS THE COST IN FABRICATING THIS PROJECT

Table #: Labor Cost

GEAR ₱
FABRI 2,00
CATIO 0.00
N

TRAN ₱
SPORT 1,00
ATION 0.00
COST

TOTA ₱
L 3,00
0.00

TOTAL COST

This table shows the sum of the materials and labor cost

Table #: Total Cost

MAT ₱
ERIA 30,1
L 66.6
COS 0
T
 LAB ₱
OR 3,00
COS 0.00
T

OVE ₱
RAL 33,1
L 66.6
TOT
AL

FABRICATION OF THE PROTOTYPE

After the researchers have selected the correct materials needed, the fabrication of the

machine prototype followed. The fabrication required a lot of cutting, welding, turning, drilling

and grinding operations. The detailed list of equipment used in this fabrication are shown on

Table # together with its specific description. The equipment used are metal cutter, drilling

machine, portable grinder, lathe and welding machine. Spot welding was used to join sections of

metals which were used in the fabrication of the frame, casing, agitator and in the shaft

reinforcement of the shredder blades.

Equipment Description Use

Iron Cutting Machine A machine tool used to cut Used to cut angle bars and
metals all the shafting used in the
machine.

Drilling Machine A machine for making and Used for drilling holes on
sizing holes on a material. the machine frame for
 mounting.

Portable Grinder A hand-held power tool Used for grinding of the

used for cutting, polishing welded surface to achieve
and grinding metals smooth surface finish.

Lathe Machine A rotary machine used for Used to reduce the shaft
shaft designing, turning and diameter to specific size
making grooves. and used for the fabrication
of the gears.

Milling Machine A machine that removes used to machine flat

material from a workpiece surfaces, can also produce
by rotating a cutting tool irregular surfaces, can also
(cutter) and moving it into be used to drill, bore, cut
the workpiece. gears, and produce slots.
Welding Machine  A device used to join Used to join sections of
materials together. Welding metals which were used in
machines produce heat that the fabrication of the frame,
melts metal parts so that casing, hopper and in the
these parts can be joined. shaft reinforcement of the
Thus, when it cools, it Cutter and welding of the
becomes a fixed and agitator blades.
resistant joint.

Box Wrench Set A manual tool for turning Used for tightening and
screw heads loosing of the bolts and nuts
 Tape Measure A tool for measuring Used to accurately measure
length. the sections to be cut.

Hammer A hand tool used for to fit It is used when the

parts, forge metal and break machinist has difficulty in
apart objects by pounding fitting parts together.

Hand Riveter A type of tool used to drive Used with rivets to fasten
rivets. steel plate joints or any
joints.

Steps in the Fabrication of the Machine Prototype

1. Fabrication of Machine frame

Angle bars of 2-inch width and 3/16-inch thickness were used to create the machine frame,

first step was creating a layout for the actual dimensions of the frame considering the size of the

drum, next step was cutting of the angle bars to specific lengths, after this the pieces were
welded together to form the main frame of the machine. The operating machine should have a

balance frame that is used as a support for all parts in a machine. Especially, in mounting the

bearings, agitator, shredder and motor. The frame should stand the vibration effect of a high-

power rotating motor and must be painted for anti-corrosion.

Welding of Machine main frame

Mounting of drum to the main frame
 2. Agitator Fabrication

A flat bar was fabricated to a spiral shape blade together with its hollow steel tube support.

The blade and steel tube supports were welded together on the agitator shaft. The dimension of

the agitator blade is 50cm outside diameter. Steel tube standard size is ¾ in with 1/8 thickness.

Fabrication of Agitator Blades Welding of the Helical blades

3. Fabrication of compost discharge mechanism

A discharge mechanism was made by cutting a rectangular section out of the

drum with a specific dimension of 320 mm width and 660 mm length to give enough

space for the addition of the hinge and lock mechanism. This type of discharge design

was developed as a thin and long discharge so that it will be convenient for the harvesting

of the compost.
 Fabrication of compost discharge mechanism

4. Mounting of drum and pillow block and checking of alignment

The drum was mounted along with the agitator blade, additional supports were

installed to hold the pillow block in place and ensure proper alignment of the shaft.
 Mounting of the Oil Drum

5. Fabrication of Gears

The gears were fabricated in the machine shop with the supervision of the

researchers to ensure that the desired dimensions and specifications were met.
 Fabrication of Gears

Fabricated Gears

6. Shredder Fabrication
31 pcs wood saw blades were mounted to a ¾ steel shaft with 12.5 mm center to center distance

from one blade to adjacent blade. The dimension of the blade is 4in diameter with 1.8mm

thickness.

The wood saw blades were welded to the shaft on each side, the blades used were high grade

wood saw blades with high carbon content to ensure that during welding the blades will not

retain a permanent deformation due to the introduction of heat from the electrodes. After

welding the blades, joints were reinforced with steel Devcon for additional strength and aesthetic

purposes since the joints can’t be ground because of the small clearances between blades.

Fabrication of Shredder
 7. Shredder housing fabrication

a 1.5 mm G.I. sheet was used in the fabrication of the shredder housing and as well as the hopper

for the manual feeding of the raw materials. After the sheet was cut to specific size it was then

welded on the drum body.

Shredder Housing
 Welding of Shredder housing on the drum body

8. Fabrication of shredder shaft pillow block supports

The shredder shafts were inserted to the pillow block, using proper tools such as

spirit level, L-square and measuring tape, the fabrication of the pillow block supports was

done by considering the elevation of the shaft from the main frame and also the level and

alignment were check so that the pillow blocks were installed properly.
 Pillow block supports

9. Fabrication of motor frame and mounting of the motor

After the fabrication of the main frame and after all other fabrication steps were

done, the next step was the fabrication of the motor frame and mounting of the motor.

This was the most difficult step since proper alignment and precision must be followed.
 Fabrication of Motor frame and mounting of motor

10. Installation of Electrical Wirings

Lastly, the researchers installed the electrical wirings. Proper wiring and

grounding were important factors that were considered, the researchers

requested a senior electrician to supervise the installation of the electrical

 wirings and as well as safety breaker with proper grounding to ensure

longevity of the electrical motors and to ensure safety of the operators.

Figure # Installation of proper wirings and safety breaker

Figure # Schematic Circuit Diagram

Collection and Preparation of Raw Materials

 The researchers gathered and collected the raw materials, after the

preparation of the raw materials, the researchers then weighed them according to the

proper ratio which consists of 70% brown and 30% green materials by weight.

Gathering of raw materials

Calculating for the Total Capacity by weight

1. The researchers calculated the total capacity by volume of the vessel

v T 200 L
vT = = '
2 2
3
vT =100 L=0.1 m
'

2. The researchers calculated the volume per kilogram of raw materials 70%
brown and 30% green by weight.

First is the diameter of the basin occupied by the raw materials

b. The researchers measured the height of the raw materials inside the basin.

D = 40 cm

h = 6.75 cm

3. The researchers then calculated the volume of the raw materials inside the
basin

π 2
v= D h
4

π 2
v= ( 40 cm ) (6.75 cm)
4
3 3
v=8482.300165 c m =0.008482300165m
4. The researchers weighed the mass of the basin plus the raw materials

3 Kilograms

5. The researchers weighed the mass of the basin alone

Mb = 0.875 kg
 6. The researchers calculated the mass of the raw materials inside the basin
Mraw= 3 kg – 0.875 = 2.125 kg

After the said calculations above, the researchers then calculated the total capacity
of the raw materials that can be fed in the vessel.

v vT
=
m mT

m x vT 2.125 kg x 0.1 m
3
mT = =
v 0.008482300165m
3

m T =25.05216697 ≈ 25 kg

Thus,

Mass of green material, Mg = 0.3 (25 kg) = 7.5 kg

Mass of Brown material, Mb = 0.7 (25 kg) = 17.5 kg

Green
material 7.5
kilograms
Brown Materials 1st batch = 8.75 kg; 2nd batch = 8.75 kg
Weight of the Final output from the 25 kg raw material

Mass of the output, Mo =5.65 kg + 6.9 kg = 12.55 kg

Operation of the Prototype

1. The operators must make sure that there are no extraneous items on the

surfaces of the machine to prevent accidents. For safe functioning, keep the machine

clean.

2. Before starting the operation, the operators must make sure that all of the

machine's parts, including the bolts, screws, and nuts, are correctly attached.

3. To switch on the machine, connect the motor to an electrical outlet and turn

it on with the switch's "on" button. There is a switch for the shredder and another

switch for the agitator. Pay attention to and listen to the machine's noises. If the

machine or the motor produces any weird noises, switch it off right away and

inspect it again.

4. The operators must be patient in feeding waste into the shredders especially

on semi hard ones.

5. After feeding the maximum amount of organic wastes into the shredder, turn

off the shredder’s switch and turn on the agitator’s switch. After every agitating

interval, turn off the agitator’s switch.

6. To examine the machine parts again, the operators must make sure that the

machine is off and is disconnected.

Testing the Prototype

In order to fulfill the researchers’ objectives, these tests are to be conducted:

1. The time intervals and number of days for the agitator operation until the organic

waste will be fully decomposed

Composting will take days to fully produce a compost but the agitator cannot fully operate at

24/7 continuously therefore, the researchers have set a fixed interval of time daily for the

operation of the agitator. The researchers monitored the days of the operation until each sample

from the vessel from different days showed signs of producing good compost.

2. EVALUATION OF THE MACHINE

The researchers conducted a survey to the Agriculturists and to the representative from The

Department of Science and Technology, the researchers demonstrated how to operate the

machine and also showed a sample of the product to the evaluators.

Questionnaire distribution

In this approach, the researchers personally distributed the questionnaire to all the

evaluators, as well as illustrated how the project operates. The survey focused on the extent of
acceptability of the prototype following Galvin’s 8 Dimensions of Quality which includes the

performance, features, reliability, durability, conformance, serviceability, aesthetic, and

perceived quality. The researchers answered all clarifying questions that arise from the

evaluators while filling out the questionnaire. The respondents' completed questionnaires were

retrieved as soon as possible. The information gathered was tallied and statistically examined.

Treatment of Data

The study employed simple percentages and weighted means to analyze data

from the surveys. Standard deviation, on the other hand, will be utilized to treat data

collected from respondents.

Scoring Procedures

Simple percentages, frequencies, and weighted mean were calculated from

the questionnaire data. The scoring methods are based on the Likert Scale. The

rating was used to determine the designed machine’s level of functionality.

Table #. Likert Scale

S R Qualita Verbal Description

c a tive

a n Scale

l g

e e

5 4 Highly Perception is Highly

. Accept
 2 able Acceptable

1
100% Acceptability
-

4 3 Very Perception is Very

. Accept Acceptable

4 able
80 % Acceptability
1

3 2 Accept Perception is Acceptable

. able
60% Acceptability
6

.
 4

2 1 Less Perception is Less

. Accept Acceptable

8 able
40% Acceptability
1

1 1 Not Perception is not

. Accept Acceptable

0 able
0% Acceptability
0

0
Analysis of the Machine features

The machine’s features were examined in order to identify any flaws that

needed to be addressed in order to enhance machine output. These benefits included

the capacity to boost quality compost production while eliminating odor and human

work. More tests were conducted to identify flaws and make alternative adjustments.

Other features include performance, dependability, and durability. Other

adjustments are also weighted.

3. Comparing the Machine productivity from Manual Composting

The prototype was compared to the traditional manual composting. Prior to the

agitating process of the machine, the researchers conducted manual composting. The

researchers recorded the result of the decomposed material after a period of time.

4. Calculating the Energy Consumption

The researchers documented the power consumption of each of the motors for both the shredder

and agitator using the Energy Meter which is an equipment used to measure and monitor energy

use and give highly accurate and reliable readings resulting in quality measurement and data. It

is an important factor for both environmental and cost reduction purposes.

Figure #. Energy meter used

 5. EVALUATION OF THE COMPOST PRODUCED
The researchers used the Agratronix 4-in-1 Soil Tester which can measure

the compost’s moisture, temperature, pH level. This device measures 5 levels of

moisture, 12 levels of soil pH, and 9 levels of sunlight intensity.

The researchers got samples of the produced compost from the machine prototype and let

the evaluators, especially the Department of Agriculture examine the quality of the compost

according to the important parameters.

 CHAPTER 5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Results of Compost

The researchers obtained small samples of decomposed material during the agitation

process of a batch of organic wastes. The samples taken were during the 7 th, 10th and

15th day of the agitated material being inside the vessel. On the 15 th day, the agitated

material showed signs for good compost.

MOISTURE CONTENT

Moisture loss during the composting process can be viewed as an index of

the decomposition rate, since the heat generation which accompanies decomposition

drives vaporization.[40]

Days Moisture Numeric Value

Content

7 Wet+ 50-70%

10 Wet 30-40%

15 Dry+ 15-20%

At the start of the composting process, during the early stage moisture

content for good composting should be in the range of 40-60 % this is to ensure

good microbial activity.[41] After 10 days there is a significant drop in the moisture
content due to the constant extraction of juice from the raw materials during this

time the moisture content dropped to an acceptable range 30-40% moisture content.

Constant drop of moisture content is good since it prevents the decomposing

materials from developing foul odor and speeds up composting time. After 15 days

it was observed that the moisture content dropped to dry+ in the range of 15-20%

this indicates that most of the moisture was extracted from the raw inputs as shown

from the images above the appearance is now brown to black which is one of the

indications of good compost, since most of the moisture content were removed from

the compost the foul odor was no longer present from the compost and the odor is

comparable to forest soil.

Figure # Moisture and Temperature result after 7 days of Agitation
 Figure # Moisture and Temperature result after 10 days of Agitation

Figure # Moisture and Temperature result after 15 days of Agitation

TEMPERATURE

The temperature observation was taken three times during the composting

period to check for any increase or drop of the temperature of the compost. The

mesophilic, thermophilic, cooling and curing stages are depicted. At 7 days the

temperature of the compost was at 38 degrees which was still at the early stage of

composting process this high temperature is an indication of microbial activity.[42]

Further cooling was observed after 10 days, based on the recorded temperature using

the instrument, the temperature after 10 days was 36 C this indicates that microbial

activities are less during this time. After 15 days there is a significant drop in the

temperature as observed by the researchers the temperature during this time has
reduced to 33 C which is now almost the same as ambient temperature this signifies

that microbial activities are nearing its final stage. Further records were taken but

there is no longer change in the temperature of the compost thus, 33 degrees is now

the optimum temperature of the compost.

Days Temperature

7 days 38

10 days 36

15 days 33

PH LEVEL

The table displays the results of monitored Ph level of the composting

material. During the initial stages of decomposition, organic acids are formed. The

acidic conditions are favorable for growth of fungi and breakdown of lignin and

cellulose. As composting proceeds, the organic acids become neutralized [43].

Throughout the experiment, the pH level is found to be around 5.8 to 6 which

indicates acidity since during this stage organic acids are formed, after 10 days the

Ph level begins to neutralize and after 15 days it was observed that the pH level had

a constant level of 7 which is one of the signs of good compost.

Days pH level
7 days 5.8

10 days 7.0

15 days 7.0

Figure # pH level result after 7 days of Agitation

Figure # pH level result after 10 days of Agitation

Figure # pH level result after 15 days of Agitation

SUMMARY OF VISUAL TESTING RESULTS

DA pH Moisture Temperature

YS level content (°C)

7 5.8 WET+ 38

day

10 7.0 WET 36

day

15 7.0 DRY+ 33

day

Comparing the Fabricated Composting Machine and Manual Composting

Table # Comparison of Manual Composting and the Fabricated Machine

ASPECT FABRICATED MANUAL COMPOSTING

COMPOSTING MACHINE

Procedure Prepare the raw materials, Dig a shallow hole for the
 then sort the raw materials by raw materials, after digging
green and brown, weigh the proceed to the gathering of
green materials and brown the raw materials and load it
materials in accordance to the onto the hole. After the raw
70% brown and 30% green materials are gathered into a
by weight ratio. After the pile, the hole is covered and
preparation, load the wastes checked from time to time to
to the shredder for the be compared to the
shredding operation, after the automated composting
shredding operation is done, method.
proceed to the agitating
process, this process will last
30 minutes per day, the
parameters set by the
researchers will be checked
from time to time till it shows
signs of good compost.

Time Agitating process is 30 Checked from time to time to

minutes per day until be compared to the
decomposed materials show automated composting
signs of good compost. method.

Odor Odor is not strong since The odor is strong since the
proper ratio is followed and raw materials are not aerated
juice from the raw materials and juice from the materials
are extracted through the are not extracted.
small holes provided by the
researchers at the bottom of
the discharge mechanism and
also the materials are aerated
due to the agitator inducing
 air inside the vessel.

Others User friendly and easy to Manual composting requires

operate, requires less effort hard manual labor and can be
and saves time since it difficult for children and old
requires about 15 days to people and requires months
produce compost. to produce compost.

Based on this data alone, we can conclude that the fabricated machine is an

effective multi-household equipment that can turn organic wastes into composts.
Machine and Compost Evaluation

The table below shows the tabulation of the ratings acquired from the

evaluators’ answers from the survey questionnaire. Each rating is tabulated using the

Likert scale show in Table #.

5- Highly Acceptable 2- Less Acceptable

4- Very Acceptable 1- Not Acceptable

3- Acceptable

Table # Tabulation of the Survey Evaluation

LEVELS OF WEI VERBAL

FUNCTIONALITY OF GHT DESCRIPTION
THE PROTOTYPE ED
MEA
(Gavin’s 8 Dimensions of
N
Quality)

PERFORMANCE

The project is efficient to its 4.166 Very Acceptable

purpose 67

The machine meets its 4.333 Highly

specification and is working 33 Acceptable
properly

The machine produces good 4.666 Highly

compost. 67 Acceptable

Average Rating 4.388 Highly

 87 Acceptable

FEATURES

The machine can be operated 5 Highly

by a single person. Acceptable

The machine is safe and easy 4.5 Highly

to use. Acceptable

The machine has a guide for 4.333 Highly

easy feeding. 33 Acceptable

The machine can easily 4.666 Highly

produce compost for a short 67 Acceptable
period of time.

Average Rating 4.634 Highly

999 Acceptable

RELIABILITY

The machine is capable of 4.166 Very Acceptable

working without failure. 67

Machine parts are properly 4.333 Highly

mounted. 33 Acceptable

It can work for a long period 4 Very Acceptable

of time.

Average Rating 4.166 Very Acceptable

 67

DURABILITY

The frame is properly 4.5 Highly

mounted and is safe to Acceptable
operate.

The parts are properly 3.833 Very Acceptable

assembled and are durable. 33

The construction of major 4.333 Highly

component 33 Acceptable

is completely installed

Average Rating 4.222 Highly

2 Acceptable

CONFORMANCE

Parts and components are 4 Very Acceptable

produced in accordance with
standards

The construction of the 4.333 Highly

major 33 Acceptable

components are logically

arranged

Average Rating 4.166 Very Acceptable

67
SERVICEABILITY

Mechanical parts are easily 4.5 Highly

accessible. Acceptable

Ease of assembling 4.166 Very Acceptable

67

Ease of Dismantling 4.333 Highly

33 Acceptable

Average Rating 4.333 Highly

33 Acceptable

AESTHETIC

The design of the 3.666 Very Acceptable

components enhances 6

the appeal of the product

The construction of the 4.166 Very Acceptable

project is done 67

professionally

The project is carefully 3.833 Very Acceptable

designed 33

especially the major

components

Average Rating 3.888 Very Acceptable

 9

PERCEIVED QUALITY

The project serves its 4.5 Highly

purpose Acceptable

Resistance to corrosion 3.333 Acceptable

3

Overall impact is high 4 Very Acceptable

Average Rating 3.944 Very Acceptable

4

OVERALL RATING 4.218 Highly

2 Acceptable

The researchers tallied and computed the evaluators’ answers from the survey evaluation

conducted basing from the extent of acceptability of the prototype following Galvin’s 8

Dimensions of quality. According to the results, the performance of the machine scored 4.38887

which based on the Likert scale in verbal description, means that it is highly acceptable. The

machine features scored 4.6349, the durability and the serviceability of the machine garnered a

score of 4.222 and 4.33333 respectively, which is considered as highly acceptable as well. The

reliability and conformance of the machine garnered the same average which is 4.1667 which in

verbal description means very acceptable. When it comes to the aesthetics of the machine, the

evaluators scored it with an average of 3.8889 which still is very acceptable. Lastly, the

perceived quality of the machine had a weighted mean of 3.9444 which is considered very
acceptable as well. Overall, the total average of the eight dimensions of quality of the prototype

is 4.2182. The overall rating for qualities of the fabricated prototype is highly acceptable.

Table # Evaluation on the Compost Quality

COMPOST QUALITY WEI VERBAL

GHT TRANSLATIO
ED N
MEA
N

Temperature of compost has 4.666 Highly

a moderate temperature in 67 Acceptable
accordance to the outside air
temperature

Color is between dark brown 4.666 Highly

to black. 67 Acceptable

Smells like forest soil and 4.333 Highly

doesn’t smell like ammonia 33 Acceptable
or rotten eggs

There are little to no 4 Very Acceptable

impurities.

Particle size of the compost 4.166 Very Acceptable

67

The compost has a crumbly 4 Very Acceptable

structure indicative for a
particle aggregation

The compost has good 4.333 Highly

 moisture content. 33 Acceptable

Overall Rating 4.309 Highly

5 Acceptable

Following the evaluation of the machine is the evaluation of the compost. The researchers

tabulated the evaluators’ ratings on the compost produced by the machine. Firstly, the evaluators

highly accepted that the temperature of the compost has a moderate temperature just like the

ambient temperature. It is also highly accepted that the color of the compost produced is between

dark brown to black, the compost smells like forest soil and doesn’t smell like ammonia or rotten

eggs, and it has a good content of moisture. On the other hand, the impurities, particle size and

the crumbly structure of the compost received a very acceptable rating from the evaluators.

Machine Evaluators

Date Name of Evaluator Company Position

June 7, 2022 Maria Victoria B. Umbac Office of the City Agriculturist II /

Agriculturist-
OIC- City

Dumaguete Agriculturist
 June 7, 2022 Raul B. Aguila LGU Dumaguete Community

Development Officer

June 7, 2022 Dwight Oliver P. Arnaiz Office of the City Agriculturist I

Agriculturist

Dumaguete

June 7, 2022 Fritz Lacorte LGU Dumaguete

June 7, 2022 Claudio Ibone Office of the City Machine Operator

Agriculturist

Dumaguete

June 8, 2022 Engr.Joel O. Legaspi DOST Negros Science Research

Oriental Provincial Specialist II

S&T Center

Table # List of Evaluators and Their Profiles

Comments and Suggestions of the Evaluators

After testing and evaluating, several comments were given by the evaluators about the prototype.

Firstly, they suggested the researchers use high quality motors with greater load capacity for

continuous operation. Second, the machine has a special feature unbeknownst to the researchers

that was observed by the evaluators, the extracted juice can be harvested by installing a funnel

below the drum to be used in the process of producing liquid fertilizer. The design of the
machine was called unique by one of the evaluators who is also a machine operator. The

evaluators praised the researchers for the low labor cost, the evaluators also said that proper

wiring and grounding was a vital feature of the machine assembly. The evaluators suggested for

future studies, and to be added on our thesis recommendations, that inoculants should be added

after harvesting the compost. These are agricultural additives that boost plant health by using

helpful rhizospheric or endophytic bacteria.

Modifications of the Prototype

On a series of tests, problems and difficulties will appear, just like they do with any

other fabricated prototypes. The researchers made the necessary and workable modifications for

the machine. In this way, future problems and effects will be eliminated or lessened.

1. Improved hopper for the feeding of wastes to the shredder

During the first test of shredding operation, it was observed by the researchers

that some of the shredded waste were expelled upwards due to the high rotational speed

of the shredder. In order to address this problem, the researchers developed an attachment

for the hopper where the top back and side were covered and only the front portion was

opened so that the expelled materials will not go out from the top of the hopper.
Figure # Initial hopper
 Figure # Installed hopper cover

2. Installation of Toggle locks on the output discharge mechanism of the vessel

Figure # Output discharge mechanism of the vessel

After shredding, the shredded materials have undergone the agitating process. As

observed by the researchers, due to the high volume of raw materials and unique design

of the blades, the raw materials were pushed downward and traveled from left to right

because of this motion some of the shredded materials slipped through the joints of the

discharge mechanism. To address this problem, the researchers introduced the installation

of 6 toggle locks 3 pieces that are equidistant on each side to tighten the discharge

mechanism and prevent the raw materials from slipping through the joints during the

agitating process.
 Figure # Installed toggle locks on the output discharge mechanism

3. Small holes were drilled on the bottom part of the vessel

Small holes were drilled on the bottom part of the vessel. This served

as a drain for the juices that were extracted from the agitated wastes.

Figure # Drilled holes at the bottom part of the vessel

Power Consumption Calculations

The actual power rating (apparent power) of the 1.5 hp for the agitator is at

432 Watts using a digital power meter. It has an operating time of 30 mins per day,

The NORECO posted kwh rate is at 11.3188 Php/kw-hr. 

The machine takes 15 days to fully convert the raw materials to compost.

Energy Cost agitator = Power consumption x operating hours/day x number of days x kwh

rate

                = 432 W 0.5 ( hr
ⅆay )( 1000W
1 kW
) ( P 11.3188 kW −hr ) ( 15 days)
Energy Cost agitator = P 36.672912 

On the other hand, the apparent power consumption of the 1 hp shredder

motor is 376 Watts using a digital energy meter. To fully shred 25 kg of raw

material inputs, its total operating time is 20 minutes. The shredder motor only

operates at 20 minutes per day for 15 days. 

Thus,

Energy Cost shredder = Power consumption x Operating time x kwh rate

 = 376 W ( 20 minutes ) ( 1 hr
60 minutes )( 1 kW
1000W )
( P 11.3188 kW −hr )

Energy Cost shredder = P 1.418622933

Total Energy Cost for the whole operation of creating compost (15 days)

Energy Cost   = Energy Cost

Total shredder + Energy Cost agitator

                              = P 36.672912 + P 1.418622933

Energy Cost = P 38.09153493

Total