Journal of Machinery Manufacturing and Automation Dec. 2014, Vol. 3 Iss. 4, PP.

74-83

Development of Yam Peeling and Slicing Machine

for a Yam Processing Plant
S. P. Ayodeji*1, B. O. Akinnuli2, O.M. Olabanji3
1, 3
Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria, South Africa
2
Federal University of Technology, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria
*1
ayodejisesantut@gmail.com

Abstract-Timely processing of farm products is important to prevent post-harvest losses and ensure food quality. Several processing,
operation have been mechanized in the production line of yam products such as parboiling, drying, pulverizing, etc. But peeling,
which is the removal of the outer layer of the yam, is one of the major problems of yam processing both for small and large scale
consumption. This idea is receiving attention from design engineers in Nigeria being the largest producer of yam in the world.
A power operated machine is developed which has two components harnessed together for peeling and slicing of yam in a pilot
poundo yam flour process plant. It consists of an electric motor, the peeling chamber fitted with peeler, auger shaft to transport the
yam, idle roller for clamping and aligning the yam along its course. The slicing unit and the protective hood carry the loading bay
and inspection slot. The machine peels the yam at relatively high angular velocity of the rotary peeling brush. The slicer was
positioned at the outlet of the feeder with high rotating speed. Machine capacity was influenced by moisture content of tubers and
variations in length and diameter. Results show that auger speed resulted in higher peeling efficiencies at various peripheral speeds
of the peeling brush. The design capacity of the machine is 114kg of yam per hour while the average efficiency is 91% and functional
efficiency 87.86%. Adoption of this yam peeling and slicing machine would promote timely processing of fresh tubers, reduces labor
input, increase productivity and hence the income of the local processors.
Keywords- Yam Peeling; Yam Slicing; Yam Process Plant

I. INTRODUCTION
Yam has an energy content of about 30billion kcal with a corresponding protein content of about 0.66 million ton. Several
species of yams are grown in the tropics and the temperate zones of the world [1]. It is the second most important root/tuber
crop in Africa, after cassava, with production reaching just under one third the level of cassava [2]. Some yams are grown only
for medicinal purposes and others for edible purposes. Of the edible species, Dioscorea alata (greater yam), Dioscorea
cayenensis (yellow yam), and Dioscorea rotundata and Dioscorea esculanta (white yam), are most common [3].
In order to minimize losses and improve quality, considerable quantities of roots and tubers are transformed into more
durable products like poundo-yam flour. This involves processing yams into dry-yam tuber or slices and flour. The dry yam
tubers/slices are processed by peeling, slicing, parboiling in hot water (40°to 60°for 1 to 3 hrs) [4]. Investing in the processing
of yam into poundo yam flour for both export and local markets is not just a relatively but an enriching investment. Since yam
in its natural state is both bulky and highly perishable, the storage problem is akin to all other agricultural products in West
Africa, and processing into flour eliminates this. Available statistics put the yearly losses to about two million tubers due to the
harvest waste [3]. [5] also reported that yam contributes more than 200 dietary calories per capital daily for more than 150
million people in West Africa, and serves as an important source of income to the people.
Initial research efforts in this area resulted in the production of several prototypes with relatively low peeling efficiencies
and quality performance efficiencies [6-9]. Yams need to be processed to significant extent commercially. Up till now,
dehydrated yam flours and yam flakes are being produced by sun drying. The manufacture of fried products from Dioscorea
rotundata has also been attempted recently [2]. Preservation of yam in brine has also been attempted, but with little success.
[10] in his work presented detail nutritional value of varieties of yam cultivated in Nigeria as shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Considering the nutritional values of yam as a staple source of carbohydrate, vitamins, dietary fibre and minerals and its
economic importance being the second most important root/tuber crop in Africa, after cassava [2] the challenges and need for
an effective method for the peeling and slicing of yam needs serious attention. Developing yam peeling and slicing machine
provides important appropriate technology since the traditional method is tedious, raises hygiene concerns and has high risk of
injury.
Pounded yam is a staple food, which is consumed by almost every tribe in Nigeria and some part of other West Africa
countries. The indigenous process of production is very laborious [11], the emergence of Instant pounded yam flour (IPYF)
recently brings succour to pounded yam lovers as the drudgery of pounding is eliminated. The production process according to
[12] consists of simple operations as: yam selection and weighing, washing, peeling and slicing, parboiling, grating, drying,
grinding, sieving and packaging.
Yam peeling remains a challenge to design engineers involved in the design of yam processing machines. Pounded yam

- 74 -
Journal of Machinery Manufacturing and Automation Dec. 2014, Vol. 3 Iss. 4, PP. 74-83

production has been greatly limited by lack of suitable machinery for industrial scale production. Katsuyama et. al [13] listed
several types of peelers used to peel a variety of fruits and vegetables such as steam peelers (for carrot and root vegetables),
mechanical peelers, and chemical peelers. Also Lisa [14] listed some other peelers as rotating cage peelers, U-Bed Design,
Raging Bull Peeler, while [15] designed a double action self-fed cassava peeler. Ukatu [9], designed Industrial Yam peeler but
with poor efficiency, [16] worked on “An improved Rotary Peeling Machine. None of these researchers has looked at peeling
and slicing machine combined for poundo yam flour production. This work looked at the development of an efficient yam
peeling and slicing machine for poundo yam flour process plant.
TABLE 1: NUTRITIONAL VALUE OF 1KG OF YAM

S/N Constituent Composition

1 Calories 4186 Joules
2 Protein 20g
3 Calcium 150mg
4 Iron 10mg
5 Vitamin A Traces
6 Thiamin 1mg
7 Riboflavin 0.3mg
8 Nicotinic Acid 4mg
9 Vitamin C 50mg

TABLE 2: NUTRIENTS PRODUCED PER ACRE OF YAM VARIETIES CULTIVATED IN NIGERIA

S/N Variety Protein(lb) Carbohydrate (lb) Oil (lb) Minerals (lb) TDN* of Peels only Total Calories/ 1000g
1 White Yam 335 6973 26 190 974 13161
2 Yellow yam 411 6957 13 196 1250 13317
3 Water Yam 556 6622 44 381 1445 12882
4 Trifoliate Yam 890 6425 92 179 760 13510
5 Chinese Yam 586 6820 4 184 420 13322
TDN* - Total Digestible Nutrients

II. MATERIALS AND METHODS

A variety of factors were considered in the design process of the machine, some of which are:
1. The equipment was designed to be relatively cheap and be within the buying capacity of small scale processors.
2. The equipment was designed to able to handle different varieties, shapes and size of yams.
3. The integration of the peeling and slicing machine to the poundo yam flour processing plant.
4. Suitable material properties used for the fabrication were mostly locally sourced.
5. The maintenance and repair of the machine can be carried out with ease.
6. There is high strength and rigidity in the construction of the machine.
7. The safety and satisfactory performance of the machine was considered.

S/N Part List Qty

1. Protective hood 1
2. Rear cover 1
3. Slicer handle 1
4. Slicers 1 set
5. Slicing unit frame 1
6. Idle roller 1
7. Pulley 4
8. Peeler shaft 1
9. V-belt 2
10. Motor house frame 1
11. Electric motor 1
12. Front cover 1
13. Slicing unit 1
14. Auger shaft 1
Fig.1: An Exploded View of the Yam Peeling and Slicing Machine

- 75 -
Journal of Machinery Manufacturing and Automation Dec. 2014, Vol. 3 Iss. 4, PP. 74-83

The component parts of the yam peeling and slicing machine are the frame, peeling shaft, auger shaft, idle roller shaft,
electric motor, bearing, and slicer. The electric motor powers the auger shaft and the auger shaft powers the peeling shaft at the
same speed. The peeling shaft is in form of a metal brush. The peeling shaft, auger shaft, and the idle roller shaft are fitted to
the frame of the machine with the aid of a bearing. The function of the shaft is to produce the required peeling effect. The oval
elongated shape between the peeling and auger shaft can accommodate the irregular average diameter of yam. The auger shaft
moves the yam tuber linearly. An exploded view of the machine is presented in Fig. 1

A. Power Transmission System.

Power is transmitted from the electric motor to the auger shaft with the help of V-belt at an angle of 60° to the ground,
using a small and big pulley. The auger shaft powers the peeling shaft at the same speed. The weight and volume of big and
small pulleys on auger shaft (Wp1) were determined using equations (1) and (2). The schematic diagram of the power
transmission system is presented in Fig. 2

𝐷𝐵
𝑟𝐵 − 𝑟𝑠
𝑁2

Pulley 2
connected to 60°

𝑇1

𝛼 𝑇2

𝑥
𝑁1
𝜃
Pulley 1 fitted to
the electric
motor
𝐷𝑆

Fig. 2 Power Transmission system in the Peeling and slicing machine

Volume of big pulley =𝜋𝐷𝐵2 𝑇𝐵 ⁄4 …...... (1)

Weight of small pulley= DS x volume x g ……… (2)
Where; DB and DS are the diameters of big and small pulley respectively, TB and TS are thickness of big and small pulley
respectively, and g is acceleration due to gravity.
Belt and Pulley design were done using equations (3) – (8) according to [17]. V-belt class A type was used because of its
advantages.
𝑁1 /𝑁2 =𝐷/𝑏 ………… (3)
𝜋𝑑𝑁1
V= ………. (4)
60
(𝑅𝐵 −𝑅𝑆 )
 = 1800 + 2sin−1 − … (5) (for open belt)
𝐶
𝜋 (𝐷−𝑑)2
L = 2C + (𝐷 + 𝑑) + ……. (6)
2 4𝐶

- 76 -
Journal of Machinery Manufacturing and Automation Dec. 2014, Vol. 3 Iss. 4, PP. 74-83

𝑇1 −𝑚𝑣 2
𝑇2 −𝑚𝑣 2
=ℓ𝜇 …….... (7)

𝑃 = (𝑇1 − 𝑇2) × 𝑉 ……… (8)

Where L = length of open belt; N1 = speed of motor pulley; N2 = speed of Auger shaft pulley; D = diameter of Auger
pulley; d = diameter of motor pulley; v = belt speed; μ= 0.25 for rubber belt running over metal pulley; T1= belt tension on
tight side; T2 = belt tension on slack side; C = Centre distance;  = Angles of wrap of the belt; m = mass of belt; and density of
rubber belt =970kg/m3 .

B. The Auger Spirals and Shaft:

The auger shaft moves the yam tuber linearly by means of a rotating helical flights whirled round it. The flights are whirled
round a cylindrical structure which is fitted permanently to the shaft by means of welding. The kinematic design for the auger
shaft is presented in Fig 3. The weight of auger spirals per unit length (WA) was determined using equations (9) to (11)
Area of spiral (AS) =𝜋𝑟𝐵2 − 𝜋𝑟𝐶2 ……… (9)
Volume of spiral (VS) =AS x TS ……… (10)
The weight of the auger spiral per unit length of auger shaft with 9 spirals is therefore given as:
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑜𝑓𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑠⁄
0.90………
WA= (11)

The weight of galvanized mild steel hollow cylinder per unit length, WH is given as:

(𝑇3 + 𝑇4 )sin 30°

𝑇3
𝐿𝑆 + 𝑇4
30°
𝐿𝑝2 (𝑇3
𝐿𝑝3 + 𝑇4 ) cos 30°
𝑇3

𝑇4 𝐷𝑎𝑝
𝐷𝑎𝑢𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑃𝐷𝐶𝐴
𝑅𝐴
𝑅𝐵
𝐿𝐶𝑆
𝐿𝐶𝐴 𝑊𝑃
𝐿𝐴𝐵 𝑇1
𝑊𝑎𝑝 (𝑇1
+ 𝑇2 ) cos 60°
Pulley transmitting 𝑇2 60°
power to the
peeling shaft

𝑇1+ 𝑇2 (𝑇1
+ 𝑇2 ) sin 60°
Pulley receiving 60°
power from the Ground
electric motor

Fig. 3 Kinematics of the Auger shaft

WH= density x volume x g / length and

𝜋
Area of hollow cylinder= (𝐷𝑎2 − 𝐷𝑏2 ) ……… (12)
4

The weight of material fed (yam) per unit length (WM) is given as:
𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑜𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙(𝑦𝑎𝑚) ⁄
0.90..…
WM= (13)

Therefore the total weight, WT, on the auger shaft per unit length was determined using equation (14)
WT =WA + WH + WM………. (14)

- 77 -
Journal of Machinery Manufacturing and Automation Dec. 2014, Vol. 3 Iss. 4, PP. 74-83

C. The Auger Shaft:

The auger shaft is supported by two bearings, each one at the end of the peeling section.
It is subjected to both torsional and bending loads. Diameter of the auger shaft is determined using equations (15)
according to [18].
16
𝑑3= [ (𝑀𝑏 𝐾𝑏 )2 + (𝑀𝑡 𝐾𝑡 )2 ]1⁄2 ……… (15)
𝜋𝑆𝑠

Where; Mb = maximum bending moment; Mt = maximum torsional moment; Kb = combined shock and fatigue factor
applied to bending = 3; Kt = combined shock and fatigue factor applied to torsion = 3; Ss = maximum allowable shear stress
for steel =40 × 106 N/m2 ; and d = diameter of shaft. Since the power transmission to the auger shaft is a belt drive, then the
torsional moment is a function of the total torque acting on the pulley, and the number of revolution of the pulley.

D. Selection of the Electric Motor:

The selection of the electric motor for the parboiling machine was based on the following factors: the motor duty
(continuous); the power rating and speed required and the type of enclosure (closed). The speed of the motor was determined
from equation (16) [19] where Dm is the diameter of the motor pulley, DA is the diameter of the pulley on the auger shaft, and
Nm represents the speed of the electric motor in r.p.m. Also, total power required, P in Watts of the electric motor, which is the
addition of power required to drive the pulley and the auger shaft, was determined using equations (17) – (19).
𝐷𝐴 𝑁𝑚
= ………… (16)
𝐷𝑚 𝑁𝐴
2𝜋𝑇𝑁𝑚
𝑃= ……... (17)
60

Angular velocity, ω = 2𝑁𝑚 ……... (18)

Linear velocity, v =𝑟ω …….... (19)
Where T in equation (17) represents the torque on the driving (electric motor) pulley in N-m.

E. The Screw Conveyor:

Equation (20) was used to design the Screw Conveyor according to [20].
Q=47.2 (𝐷2 – 𝑑 2 ) × 𝐴 × 𝑛………. (20)
Where Q = conveyance capacity; D = Screw diameter; d = Hollow Cylinder diameter; A = Screw pitch; and n = Pulley
speed.

F. The Volume of the Hopper and Peeling Chamber:

The chamber is circular in shape. The volume of the hopper (v) and Peeling Chamber was determined using equation (21)
and (22) respectively.
V = 𝜋 r2L ……………… (21)
Where;
Vc= 𝜋𝑟 2 L…………….. (22)
Where L = Loading bay length; and R = Loading bay radius in equation (21) while Vc = Volume of peeling chamber; V =
Radius of cylinder; and L = Length of the drum in equation (22).

G. Determination of Peeling Force, Permissible Angle of Twist for Peeler and Auger and Arial Deflection of the Shafts:
Peeling force, permissible angle of Twist for peeler and auger and arial deflection of the shafts was determined using
equations (23), (24) and (25) respectively. The peeling force is a centripetal force produced by the metal brush, which acts on
the surface of the yam in contact.
F = M ω r2 ------------- (23)
4
Ø = 584 MtL/Gd ------------- (24)
δ = FL/AE--------- (25)
Where M = average mass of yam tuber = 2.5kg; r = radius of peeler; ω = angular speed; n = speed of peeler in rev/min; L =
Length of shaft; Mt= torsional moment; G = torsional modulus of rigidity; d = Shaft diameter; F = Force acting on the shaft; L
= Length of shaft; E = Modulus of Elasticity; δ= arial deflation of the shafts and A = Area of Shaft

- 78 -
Journal of Machinery Manufacturing and Automation Dec. 2014, Vol. 3 Iss. 4, PP. 74-83

Fig. 2 shows the detail drawing of the developed machine.

H. Designed Capacity of the Machine:

According to [21], the designed capacity Cd is a measure of the total volume of washed yam, the machine could handle per
unit time as shown in equation (26)
𝑉
𝐶𝑑 = 𝑡……. (26)
𝑇𝑡

Where Vt and Tt represent the volume of washed yams in a full hopper size of the machine and total time required to peel
and slice a full hopper size of the washed yams respectively.

ISOMETRIC INTERIOR VIEW 1 OF MACHINE ISOMETRIC INTERIOR VIEW 2 AND PERSPECTIVE

4D VIEW OF THE MACHINE REALISTIC PLAN VIEW OF THE MACHINE

SECTIONAL VIEWS OF THE MACHINE

Fig. 4: Showing Detail Drawing Of The Yam Peeling And Slicing Machine.

The approximate volume Vy of a yam tuber is calculated based on initial survey done on yam selection and size giving yam
average diameter (d) as100mm and average length (Ly) as250mm. Therefore, the cross sectional area (A) and volume Vy of a
yam tuber were found from equations (27) and (28).
𝜋𝑑 2
𝐴= ………. (27)
4

𝑉𝑦 = 𝐴𝐿𝑦 …….. (28)

Consequently, the approximate number of yam tuber in a full hopper is defined as hopper volume divided by volume of a

- 79 -
Journal of Machinery Manufacturing and Automation Dec. 2014, Vol. 3 Iss. 4, PP. 74-83

yam tuber. Practically, the average number of sliced yams in a tuber is approximately 12. Then; the total number of sliced
yams from a full hopper (Nt) is given as;
Number of yam tuber in a full hopper × 12
An average of 2washed yams enters the peeling chamber at a time, and the time (Td) for them to move from the hopper
feeding end to the delivery end was found (see equation 29).
𝐿𝑐
𝑇𝑑 = ……….. (29)
𝑉𝑎

Therefore, the estimated total time taken to peel and slice a full hopper size of washed yams is
𝑁𝑡
𝑇𝑡 = 𝑇𝑑 …….. (30)
4

I. Peeling Efficiency (PE) and % Material Loss of the Peeling (MLP) Machine:
The peeling efficiency of the machine was determined using equation (31). This is the ratio of the weight of yam tuber after
peeling (WA) to the weight of the tuber before peeling (WB) expressed as a percentage while percentage material loss in
peeling is a measure of the effectiveness of the peeling chamber and was determined using equation (32). Total weight of yam
before peeling, WBT = 3.85kg and total weight of yam after peeling, WAT = 3.5kg (Table 4)
WA
P E= × 100%.......... (31)
WD
𝑊𝐵𝑇 −𝑊𝐴𝑇
MLP= × 100.......... (32)
𝑊𝐵𝑇

J. Determination of Machine Functional Efficiency (FE)

Machine functional efficiency (FE) is a measure of the number of cubes product to the number of chips expected to be
produced. If Nc is the number of cubes produced and Nt is the expected total number of cubes per operation which is the ratio
of length of sliced yam to expected thickness of cubes. The functional efficiency, FE is therefore determined from equation (33).
𝑁𝑐
FE= × 100%........... (33)
𝑁𝑡

K. Determination of Slicing Efficiency S  and Percentage Material Loss in Slicing (MLs):

E

Slicing efficiency is the ratio of the total weight of sliced cubes (WC) to the total weight of yam before slicing (W D)
expressed as a percentage as expressed in equation (34). Percentage material loss in slicing is a measure of the effectiveness of
the slicing chamber. If WD is total weight of yam before slicing and WC is the total weight of yam after slicing, then it is as
expressed in equation (35).
WC
SE   100% (34)
WD …..…..

 W  WC 
M L   D   100% …….. (35)
 WD 

L. Determination of Average Machine Efficiency M E  and Average Machine Percentage Material Loss (ML):

Average Machine efficiency, M E is given by the average of the peeling and slicing efficiencies as shown in equation (36).
The average Machine Percentage Material Loss, M L is given by the average of the percentage material losses in peeling and
slicing as indicated in equation (37).
1
𝑀𝐸 = (𝑃𝐸 + 𝑆𝐸 )…….. (36)
2

1
𝑀𝐿 = (𝑀𝐿𝑃 + 𝑀𝐿𝑆 )…….. (37)
2

- 80 -
Journal of Machinery Manufacturing and Automation Dec. 2014, Vol. 3 Iss. 4, PP. 74-83

III. MATERIALS SELECTION

The cost, availability, properties and weight of the materials were some of the factors considered for the selection of
appropriate material for each machine component. Table 3 presents the summary of the material selected for each machine
component.
TABLE 3: A SUMMARY OF THE MATERIAL SELECTION PROCESS

S/N Machine Component Material Used Reason for Selecting the Material
1 Body frame Mild Steel  Good tensile properties
 Low cost
 Readily available
2 Auger Shaft Mild Steel  Good tensile properties
 Low cost
 Readily available
3 Protective hood, Rear and front cover, Mild Steel  Good tensile properties
Motor house frame,  Low cost
 Readily available
4 Slicer handle Mild Steel  Good tensile properties
 Low cost
 Readily available
5 Slicers and Slicing unit Stainless Steel  Excellent corrosion resistant
 Good for food processing
 Good tensile properties
 Readily available
6 Slicing unit frame Mild Steel  Good tensile properties
 Low cost
 Readily available
7 Idle roller Mild Steel  Good tensile properties
 Low cost
 Readily available
8 Peeler shaft Mild Steel  Good tensile properties
 Low cost
 Readily available
9 Motor house frame Mild Steel  Good tensile properties
 Low cost
 Readily available

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

A. Operational Principle of the Developed machine

When operated, yam tubers are fed through the loading unit into the peeling chamber. The idle roller helps in pressing the
tubers on the peeler as it passes through the chamber while the peels are collected through the chute to the machine base. The
peeler, carrying wire-brush peeling bits incorporates an auger as well as an idle roller to monitor the yam tuber movement in
the peeling chamber. The peeler and auger shafts rotate in the same direction at the same speed and impacts a rotary and linear
motion on the tuber. The relative motion between the peeler and auger shafts and the rotary motion of the tuber produces the
required peeling. The peeled yam tubers are then passed into the slicing unit where slicing takes place. The sliced yam cubes
are then passed on to the next stage in the poundo yam process plant.

B. Results
The yam peeling and slicing machine was tested using pulleys as a speed reducer to a peeler/Auger speed of 490.91rpm
considered adequate for the operation of the machine. It was run on no load for about 5 minutes with a one-phase 1410 rpm,
2Hp electric motor before it was loaded with washed yam tubers. The weight of the yam before peeling and the time taken for
the peeling to be completed were recorded. Also the weight of the peeled yam before slicing and after slicing and the time
taken for the slicing process were recorded. The test was carried out on the machine five times using several tubers of yam
randomly selected. Table 4 shows a summary of the results obtained for the various tests performed on the machine, while
Table 5 presents the summary of the results of the similar tests using the domestic hand peeling and slicing method and the two
results were compared. The peeling efficiency is taken as the ratio of the yam after peeling to its weight before peeling.
TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OBTAINED FOR THE VARIOUS TESTS PERFORMED ON THE MACHINE

No of Weight Weight Peeling Peeling %Material Weight Slicing Slicing %Material

Tuber before after time efficiency loss in after time efficiency % loss in
peeling peeling (sec.) (%) peeling slicing (sec.) slicing (kg)
(kg) (kg) (kg)
1 1.1 0.90 3.71 81.82 18.18 0.87 6.42 96.67 3.33
1 0.95 0.90 3.85 94.74 5.26 0.88 6.51 97.78 2.22
1 0.65 0.60 2.75 92.31 8.33 0.56 6.05 93.33 6.67

- 81 -
Journal of Machinery Manufacturing and Automation Dec. 2014, Vol. 3 Iss. 4, PP. 74-83

1 0.60 0.57 3.09 95.00 5.00 0.54 6.01 94.74 5.26

1 0.55 0.53 3.13 96.36 3.64 0.48 6.00 90.57 9.43
Ave. 0.77 0.70 3.31 92.05 8.08 0.67 6.20 94.62 5.38

TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OBTAINED FOR THE VARIOUS MANUAL PEELING AND SLICING METHOD

No of Weight Weight Peeling Peeling %Material Weight Slicing Slicing %Material loss
Tuber before after time efficiency loss in peeling after time efficiency % in slicing (kg)
peeling (kg) peeling (kg) (sec.) (%) slicing (kg) (sec.)
1 1.1 0.87 75.03 79.09 20.91 0.80 63.25 91.95 8.05
1 0.95 0.82 68.97 86.32 13.68 0.77 62.01 93.90 6.10
1 0.65 0.51 68.62 78.46 26.15 0.46 59.87 90.20 9.80
1 0.60 0.53 63.33 88.33 11.67 0.47 58.62 88.68 11.32
1 0.55 0.50 59.75 90.90 9.09 0.44 55.00 88.00 12.00
Ave. 0.77 0.65 67.14 84.62 16.30 0.59 59.75 90.55 9.45

C. Discussion
The percentage of material lost has also been drastically reduced while the total processing time gives the machine a great
advantage over the laborious and time consuming hand processing. Peeling time was also fairly constant for all the tubers used.
The orientation and size of tubers however affects the effectiveness of peeling to a great extent. It was also noted that despite
the variation in the weight of the tubers used during the testing, the peeling time remained fairly constant. This shows that
weight of tubers had no effect on peeling time.
The average efficiency of YPSM was 87.86%. The average time it takes YPSM to peel and slice a tuber of yam is 12.2
seconds. The design capacity C is calculated to be 1.2kg of yam/Sec.

V. CONCLUSION
The yam peeling and slicing has been designed, fabricated and evaluated. The performance evaluation gave the michnic the
efficiency of 87.86%, with designed capacity of 1.2kg of yam/sec. This was achieved with very low cost of production will
promote timely processing of fresh tubes, reduces labour impact, and increases production on the side of production area.
The yam peeling and slicing machine is a very simple and hygienic machine with safe operation. It will be very good for
small scale and large scale production of poundo yam products. The system offers a sustainable approach for processing and
consumption of yam in developing countries. It is expected that the modified machine will minimize the drudgery involved in
yam peeling and slicing, enhance yam processing and storage, and improve the quality of processed yam products for both
local and international markets.

VI. RECOMMENDATION
Despite the appreciable performance of the motor operated yam peeling and slicing machine, in terms of machine capacity,
machine efficiency and lower percentage material loss, I will recommend that:
1. Automated devices that will take care of different sizes and orientation of yam tubers should be incorporated into further
design of the machine to eliminate the problem of yam selection.
2. The slicing unit should be improved upon by the introduction of a fulcrum lever to reduce the amount of force exerted in
slicing.

REFERENCES

[1] Innvista, Yams; History, Description and Types, 2009. www.innvista.com

[2] Food and Agricultural Organization, FAO Roots, tubers, plantains and bananas in human nutrition – Nutritive value, methods of
cooking and processing, 2008. www.fao.org
[3] International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, IITA: Root and tuber systems, 2008. www.iita.org
[4] Babajide J. M and Atanda O. “Quantitative survey and anti-microbial effect of Pipiostigmathonnigil and Khayaivorensis on traditional
dry-yam,” African journal of Microbiology Research, vol. 2, pp. 078-08, 2008.
[5] Babaleye, T., “Raising the status of the yam, a major food crop in West Africa,” ANBBIA SUPPLEMENT ISSUE/EDITION, no. 463,
pp. 1-, 2003.
[6] Aderoba O. (2008): Design and fabrication of a yam tuber peeling and slicing machine for a poundo-yam process plant. Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Technology Akure, Ondo-state, Nigeria.
[7] Adejumo O. Design and Fabrication of a machine for slicing plantain, Department of Agriculture and Agricultural Extension, Federal
University of Technology Akure, Ondo-state, Nigeria, 2007.
[8] Adetan D. A., AdekoyaL. O and Aluko O. B. “Theory of a mechanical method of peeling cassava tubers with knives,” International
Agrophysics, vol. 20, iss. 4, pp. 269-276,, 2006.
[9] Ukatu A. C., “Development of an industrial yam peeler,” Nigerian Journal of Engineering Research Development, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 45-

- 82 -
Journal of Machinery Manufacturing and Automation Dec. 2014, Vol. 3 Iss. 4, PP. 74-83

56, 2002.
[10] Coursey O., Yams: Tropical Agricultural Series, Macmillan Press Limited, London, 1967.
[11] Ajiboshin I. O, Daoudu M. A, Omotade S. A and Komolafe A. O (2005): Capacity Building for Instant Pounded yam Flour Production,
Nigerian Journal of Information Studies, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp 1-5
[12] Oshodi, “Roots and Tubers Systems,” Federal Institute of Industrial Research, Nigeria, FIIRO, 2005. www.iita.org
[13] Katsuyama A. M, Olson N. A and Rose W. W., “In-Plant Control of Food Processing Waste Water,” U.S Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Technology Transfer, Washington, D. C., 1975.
[14] Lisa B., “A New Millennium Spin on Peeling Vegetables,” Manufacturing Innovation Insider Newsletter, Lyco Manufacturing Inc.,
2002): www.lycomfg.com
[15] Olukunle O. J, Ademosun O. C, Ogunlowo A. S, Agbetoye L. A. S, and Adesina A., “Development of a Double-action Cassava Peeling
Machine,” International Conference on Prosperity and Poverty in a Globalized World; Challenges for Agricultural Research,
DuetscherTropentag, Germany, 2006. www.tropentag.com
[16] Ariavie G. O and Ohwovoriole E. N, “Improved Ohwovoriole’s Rotary Cassava Tuber Peeling Machine,” Nigerian Journal of
Engineering Research and Development, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 61-63, 2002.
[17] Rotimi I., “Design and Fabrication of rice polisher,” undergraduate project thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Federal
University of Technology Akure, Ondo-state, Nigeria, 2005.
[18] Chelecha O. P., “Design and Fabrication of a multipurpose crushing machine,” undergraduate project thesis, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Federal University of Technology Akure, Ondo-state, Nigeria,2003.
[19] Khurmi R. S and Gupta J. K., Mechanical Engineering Design, S. Chand and Company Limited, Ram Nagar, New Delhi, India, 2005.
[20] Sahay K. M and Singh K. K, Unit Operations of Agricultural Processing, Vikas publishing house, PVT Limited, 1994.
[21] Olukunle O. J., “Development of a Cassava Peeling Machine for Cottage Industries,” Tropentag University of Kassel-Witzenhausen and
University of Gottingen, Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development, 2007,www.tropentag.com

- 83 -