3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.

1 INTRODUCTION This chapter is mainly centered on the various methods that were employed in the quest to gather information vital for the development of this project 3.2 DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES Research was thoroughly conducted with the aim of gathering important information key in the study of the roasting machines. Different methods of data collection were used and below are some of them explained.

PIE CART TO REPRESENT VARIATIONS IN USAGE OF RESEARCH TOOLS

OBSERVATIONS INTERNET SURFING INTERVIEWS LIBRARY RESEARCH

12% 18%

30%

40%

3.2.1 OBSERVATIONS This research method was very instrumental in the gathering of important and essential information. In this quest to gather facts, I embarked on industrial visits to major players as far as the production of handy machines using locally available materials is concerned. Among some of the companies I visited are Precision Grinders and small scale entrepreneurs in Gaza Industrial area near Highfield. The method was very easy to execute as I simply asked for permission to analyze their wares and observe their functionality as they were test run. This method alone contributed 30% to the overall information gathered. 3.2.2 INTERVIEWS

Interviews were an effective research instrument and contributed a significant amount of information as I found them easy to implement. They worked hand in hand with observations and during the process of carrying out my own observations I would simply take notes of points or areas which I felt needed clarification. I ended up turning some of those notes into questions so that I could ask precisely what I wanted to know. The information I gathered this way was beneficial but not to a large extent as I would have liked as it came from technically oriented personnel who stuck to basics for the sake of not giving away finer details to protect their own interests. I banked on them to give accurate and reliable information but it turned out some were reluctant to give answers to every question I asked. As a result the overall contribution was rated at 18% of the total. 3.2.3 INTERNET SURFING Internet surfing was undoubtedly the highest contributor in the gathering of facts and information. Various sites I visited gave a lot of information ranging from the functional aspects to the various types of material available and many other design aspects attributed to extraction machinery. Also information pertaining to the electrical and mechanical aspects was available and it helped as it provided a wide choice of options for electrical motors and other mechanical components to use. The overall contribution of this research tool was 40%. 3.2.4LIBRARY RESEARCH A great deal amount of time was spent in the library doing research and the calculations for the various components. References were made to mechanical handbooks and engineering design textbooks in the library. Some important information includes properties of materials. The overall contribution of this research tool was 12%. 3.2.5 QUESTIONAIRES This method of data collection proved to be difficult to use and very little information was gathered this way as most people I approached with the aim of them completing the questionnaires I had made were reluctant to cooperate citing challenges of lack of time. They however opted to have me ask questions directed at what exactly I wanted to know and get to move on. As a result there was no contribution of this research method. Experimental Procedure Parameters Measured Determination of the grain size From the samples, 10 peanuts were selected at random for determining the physical axial characteristics. For each grain, three linear dimensions were measured, that is length (L), width (W), and thickness (T) using a micrometer screw gauge (Sheffied S 139 Br) reading to 0.01 mm. After determining all the three linear dimensions, a geometric mean diameter de was determined as given by Mohsenin (1980)

de = (abc)1/3 ,where, a,b,c = diameters/ dimensions along three axes (all in mm). This procedure was done with regards to determine the possible maximum between feed screw and outer walls. Therefore measurements of all geometric mean diameter where averaged to obtain the maximum and minimum average sieve diameter. Bulk Density of Samples A small sample of the peanuts was weighed. The sample, which filled the container, was weighed using electronic meter balance. The bulk density of the samples were determined using the method given by Mohsenin(1980).

,where: m = mass of grain, chaff or straw (kg) v = volume of container (m3) the bulk density of the sample was determined so as to be able to calculate the amount of force acting on the shaft of the roaster. Determination of Shaft diameter Shaft diameter was determined by considering the shear stress of the material, torque required to turn the shaft under a load, load in the frustum per unit time and revolutions per minute of the shaft, shown in section 4.5.3. Determination of shaft length and rotational speed The length of the shaft was determined by considering the residence time of the peanuts in the roasting zone. If the temperature within roasting chamber is 180 C as in large scale industrial roasting the peanuts would have to spend between 3-4minutes within the roasting chamber. The rotational speed of the shaft and the length of the shaft must be designed such that the residence time is attained. Design Process The basic five-step process usually used in a problem-solving can also work for design problems. Since design problems are usually defined more vaguely and have a multitude of correct answers, the process may require backtracking and iteration. Solving a design problem is a contingent process and the solution is subject to unforeseen complications and changes as it develops. The five steps used for solving design problems are: 1. Define the problem

2. Gather pertinent information 3. Generate multiple solutions 4. Analyze and select a solution 5. Test and implement the solution 3.4.1 Research Design The mapping of this design was done through design models. The research design initially followed two design models in coming up with the best evaluated model to use. The design processes were according to Hertz (2007) and Norman (1995) and in this project Hybrid design process model was used, taking into account the weaknesses and strengths of each model over the other. Fig 6 shows the flow diagram of the design process:

Design Brief

Product Design Specification (PDS)

Alternative Concept Design

Detail Design

Costing

Working Prototype

Testing and Evaluation

A Hybrid Design Process Model

According to Hertz (2007) the stage of concept design in the design process, an attempt is made by the designer to come up with a possible solution to the design problem. The design specifications were taken into account in coming up with the solution. But, but Norman (1995) model was voted to be more effective, it gave the designer the room to come with alternative model which was an effective stage in the designing process. Norman (1995) model allowed the designer to produce a prototype and finally the evaluation. Norman (1995) model reflected a weakness in not including costing, but this problem was addressed by Hertz (2007). Therefore the weakness and strengths of each of the models is accounted for by an alternative model known as the Hybrid design model.

3.3The design To come up with the design, a broad spectrum of disciplines will be consulted. These include the following: Engineering Drawing and Graphics. Ergonomics Material Science Engineering. Food chemistry. Research methodology. Engineering Mathematics. Technopreneurship Principles