Downloaded 18 times
Uploaded byManjula Tennakoon
final presentation - Watermelon juice extraction machine
This document describes the design and testing of a watermelon juice extracting machine. A group of engineering students aimed to design a portable, low-cost machine that removes seeds and rind efficiently. They developed conceptual designs, created 3D models, and tested prototypes. Testing showed the prototype had higher juice yields, extraction efficiencies, and capacities than manual extraction, while reducing extraction losses. Future work includes modifying blade designs and completing the machine to maximize efficiency for small businesses.
final presentation - Watermelon juice extraction machine
- 1. WATERMELON JUCE EXTRACTINGMACHINE UGP2016-04 1
- 2. UGP 2016 -04 • Project Supervisor • Dr Indika Perera • Group Members • Jayathilaka R.M.N (EG/2012/1953) • Thennakoon T.M.M ( EG/2012/2092) • Peiris K.A.D.W.S ( EG/2012/2023) UGP2016-04 2
- 3. Background of theProblem • Tourism hotels and some fruit juice shops store readymade water melon juice which are not fresh • Extract watermelon juice without separating seeds • When trying to remove seeds nutrious part also wasted 3UGP2016-04 out of 29
- 4. Aims and Objectives •Aims To design and fabricate watermelon extracting machine • Objectives Portable machine Small in size Remove seeds and rind Time saving Reduce energy consumption Low cost 4Jayathilaka R.M.N. out of 29UGP2016-04
- 5. Design Process • MorphologicalChart • Machine Concepts • Weighted Decision Matrix • 3D Model Jayathilaka R.M.N. out of 295UGP2016-04
- 6. 6Jayathilaka R.M.N. outof 29 Morphological Chart UGP2016-04
- 7. Machine Concepts Jayathilaka R.M.N.UGP2016-04 out of 297UGP2016-04
- 8. Machine Concepts Jayathilaka R.M.N. 8out of 29UGP2016-04
- 9. Weighted Decision MatrixMethod Selection Criteria Machine Concepts Weights Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4 Concept 5 Concept 6 R Score R Score R Score R Score R Score R Score Handling Ease 4 0.8 5 1 4 0.8 4 0.8 2 0.4 3 0.6 20% Seeds & Rind Removing 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 0.75 4 1 25% Durability 4 0.4 4 0.4 3 0.3 2 0.2 3 0.3 5 0.5 10% Portability 4 0.6 3 0.45 5 0.75 3 0.45 2 0.3 4 0.6 15% Ease of Manufacture 4 0.6 3 0.45 2 0.3 2 0.3 2 0.3 4 0.6 15% Dismantle & Cleaning 4 0.6 3 0.45 3 0.45 2 0.3 3 0.45 4 0.6 15% Total Score 4 3.75 3.6 2.75 2.5 3.9 Rank 1 3 4 5 6 2 9 out of 29UGP2016-04 Jayathilaka R.M.N.
- 10. 3D Model 10 outof 29UGP2016-04 Jayathilaka R.M.N.
- 11. CONCEPT TESTING • Inthe fabrication process first we made a model of scraper using plastic scratch parts which can be bought from local market and validated conceptual design. 11UGP2016-04 out of 29Peiris K.A.D.W.S.
- 12. • We got250ml approximately from design and manual methods as well from both half of watermelon 12 CONCEPT TESTING UGP2016-04 out of 29Peiris K.A.D.W.S.
- 13. Fabrication • we intendto manufacture scraper using plastic molding and 3D Printing but it is very expensive. • Then we decide to manufacture it using stainless steel plates of gauge 24 (0.635mm). 13UGP2016-04 out of 29Peiris K.A.D.W.S.
- 14. 14 Fabrication But then weencountered difficulties in Stainless Steel model Safety issues, Weight, Handling difficulties UGP2016-04 out of 29Peiris K.A.D.W.S.
- 15. • we decidedto fabricate the scraper using Perspex sheets to overcome the difficulties in Stainless Steel model. 15 Fabrication UGP2016-04 out of 29Peiris K.A.D.W.S.
- 16. 16 • We havefabricated the juice container using a transparent Perspex sheet. It is a cylindrical container. • The base frame of the machine was fabricated using ¾ inch mild steel box bars. Fabrication UGP2016-04 out of 29Peiris K.A.D.W.S.
- 17. • The mainrotating shaft was fabricated using one inch diameter nylon shaft. We also fabricated a pulley using 4” diameter nylon bar. • The motor used to power the machine is a 120W electric motor which used to drive the pulley by a belt. 17 Fabrication UGP2016-04 out of 29Peiris K.A.D.W.S.
- 18. 18 Fabrication UGP2016-04 out of29Peiris K.A.D.W.S.
- 19. Test and Results 19 •𝐽𝑢𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑% = 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑢𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝐸𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 ( 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑢𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝐸𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 +𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑊𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒) × 100% • 𝐸𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦% = 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑢𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝐸𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 Mass of Fed Sample × 100% UGP2016-04 out of 29Tennakoon T.M.M.
- 20. • 𝐸𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠= 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐹𝑒𝑑 𝑆𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 –( 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑢𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝐸𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 + 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑊𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 ) 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐹𝑒𝑑 𝑆𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100% • 𝐽𝑢𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝐸𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑢𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝐸𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑(𝑚𝑙) 𝐽𝑢𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝐸𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒(𝑠) 20 Test and Results UGP2016-04 out of 29Tennakoon T.M.M.
- 21. Juice Extraction RawData Measured During the Manual Method Test No Mass of Fed Sample(g) Mass of Juice Extracted(g) Volume of Juice Extracted(ml) Mass of Residual Waste(g) Juice Extraction Time(s) 01 650 285 270 235 335 02 748 355 340 240 420 03 732 333 330 246 432 04 714 334 325 240 338 21UGP2016-04 out of 29Tennakoon T.M.M.
- 22. Average Machine PerformanceIndex during the Manual Method Test No Juice Yield Extraction Efficiency Extraction Loss Juice Extraction Capacity 01 54.81 43.85 20 0.81 02 59.66 47.46 20.45 0.81 03 57.51 45.49 20.90 0.76 04 58.19 46.78 19.61 0.96 22UGP2016-04 out of 29Tennakoon T.M.M.
- 23. Test No Mass ofFed Sample(g) Mass of Juice Extracted(g) Volume of Juice Extracted(ml) Mass of Residual Waste(g) Juice Extraction Time(s) 01 761 357 350 280 300 02 658 307 270 229 225 03 743 370 360 249 219 04 756 354 350 264 256 23 Juice Extraction Raw Data Measured during the Evaluation of the Prototype UGP2016-04 out of 29Tennakoon T.M.M.
- 24. Test No JuiceYield Extraction Efficiency Extraction Loss Juice Extraction Capacity 01 56.04 46.91 16.29 1.17 02 57.28 46.66 18.54 1.20 03 59.77 49.80 16.69 1.64 04 57.28 46.83 18.25 1.37 24 Average Machine Performance Index during the Evaluation Prototype UGP2016-04 out of 29Tennakoon T.M.M.
- 25. Comparison between manualand Prototype Test Juice Extraction Capacity (𝒎𝒍/𝒔) Juice Yield% Extraction Loss Extraction Efficiency (𝒎𝒍/𝒈) Manual Prototype Manual Prototype Manual Prototype Manual Prototype 1 0.81 1.17 54.81 56.04 20 16.29 43.85 46.91 2 0.81 1.20 59.66 57.28 20.45 18.54 47.46 46.66 3 0.76 1.64 57.51 59.77 20.90 16.69 45.49 49.80 4 0.96 1.37 58.19 57.28 19.61 18.25 46.78 46.83 25UGP2016-04 out of 29Tennakoon T.M.M.
- 26. 26 Comparison between manualand Prototype 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 0 1 2 3 4 5 ExtractionCapacity Sample No Juice Extraction Capacity Juice Extraction Capacity-Prototype Juice Extraction Capacity-Manually UGP2016-04 out of 29Tennakoon T.M.M.
- 27. 27 Comparison between manualand Prototype 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 %ExtractionLoss Sample No Percentage of Extraction Loss Extraction Loss-Prototype Extraction Loss-Manually UGP2016-04 out of 29Tennakoon T.M.M.
- 28. 28 43.00 44.00 45.00 46.00 47.00 48.00 49.00 50.00 51.00 0 1 23 4 5 %ofExtractionEfficiency Sample No Percentage of Extraction Efficiency Extraction Efficiency-Prototype Extraction Efficiency-Manually Comparison between manual and Prototype UGP2016-04 out of 29Tennakoon T.M.M.
- 29. CONCLUSION AND FUTUREWORK • According to the Background of the problem section we designed this machine to be used for Small Scale Business. • There is no proper machine to extract watermelon juice in a small scale business. • This machine is designed to operate with a high torque motor. 29UGP2016-04 out of 29Tennakoon T.M.M.
- 30. • This machinewas designed in a way it use a scraper to scrape the flesh and separate seeds and rind then extract the juice under gravity. The scraper is rotated using a motor. • We hope to develop blades to new sizes, angles and types to increase efficiency • We hope to complete and test the machine to find the efficiency and develop to get the maximum efficiency. • We hope to develop and sell this machine to between Rs.3000/- and Rs.5000/ . 30 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK UGP2016-04 out of 29Tennakoon T.M.M.
- 31.