CHAPTER- I

INTRODUCTION

Weed control is one of the most difficult tasks in agriculture that accounts for a
considerable share of the cost involved in agriculture production. Farmers
generally expressed their concern for the effective weed control measures to
arrest the growth and propagation of weeds. In Indian agriculture, it’s a very
difficult task to weed out unwanted plants manually as well as using bullock
operated equipments which may further lead to damage of main crops. More
than 33 percent of the cost incurred in cultivation is diverted to weeding
operations there by reducing the profit share of farmers. A weed is essentially
any plant which grows where it is unwanted. A weed can be thought of as any
plant growing in the wrong place at the wrong time and doing more harm than
good (Parish, 1990). It is a plant that competes with crops for water, nutrients
and light. This can reduce crop production. Some weeds have beneficial uses
but not usually when they are growing among crops. Weeds decrease the value
of land, particularly perennial weeds which tend to accumulate on long fallows;
increase cost of cleaning and drying crops. Weeds waste excessive proportions
of farmers’ time, thereby acting as a brake on development (Lavabre, 1991).

Weeding is an important but equally labour intensive agricultural unit

operation. Today the agricultural sector requires non-chemical weed control that
ensures food safety. Consumers demand high quality food products and pay
special attention to food safety. Through the technical development of
mechanisms for physical weed control, it might be possible to control weeds in
a way that meets consumer and environmental demands.

Weeds interfere with agricultural production by adding to the cost of

production, increasing labour, harboring diseases and pests of crops and
reducing yields if not checked. Weed competition is a serious problem in almost

1
all rainy season crops. Losses in yield ranging from 9 to 60 percent or more
have been reported. (Smith 1961, Mani et al., 1968, Ghosh et al., 1975). The
competition becomes more serious in upland rice than in transplanted rice
because the seeds of rice and weeds germinate simultaneously. Weeds compete
with the cultivated crop plants for soil nutrients, moisture, light and space.

For many years agriculture has depended on herbicides for controlling weeds in
arable crops. But rising costs and concern over the potential health and
environmental risks have led to a search for alternative methods.

Three methods of weed control are known in agriculture. They are

mechanical, chemical and biological control. The traditional method of hand
weeding is costly and time consuming. Chemical weed control holds promise
but the chemicals are not easily available and suitable dry weather is hardly
available during Kharif season. Biological control is a long range program and
very little work has been done on this aspect. In mechanical control method the
weeding tools and implements are used for control of weeds. The tools cut the
weeds at the root zone or burry the weeds in the soil.

Mechanical weed control is easily adopted by farmers once they get

convinced of its advantages. Often tillage implements are used for weeding but
the primary tillage tools alone for controlling weeds are found ineffective
(Mudakavi et al, 1987).

Various types of mechanical weeders have been developed. Basically

they can be grouped as per power source i.e. human operated, animal operated
and power operated. In human operated various types of hoes have been
developed but they require muscle power and cannot be operated for long time.
Therefore the power weeders have been developed. A power weeder has been
introduced by Bangalore Tools Limited, whose cost is Rs.20, 000/- which is
quite higher.

2
 One approach in row crops is to remove the weed population between the
rows mechanically, leaving only a small fraction in the rows. Different types of
weeders are used in different parts of a country. Weeding by rotary weeders,
rotating the blade in horizontal axis is one of the principles of weeding.

It is generally observed that the weeding operation is done once or which

reduces the engine life of the power weeder. Therefore it is imperative to design
different implements in which a common prime mover (engine) may be used for
different light weight attachments. So that the farmer can use one prime mover
for more than one operation. Since a major portion of labour input is spent in
weeding operations, it is required to try to improve the technology of weeding.

Considering the above problems, it was decided to design and develop a

simple and compact Battery operated weeder machine .weeder using the battery
of existing power with following objectives:

1. To design and develop Battery operated weeder.

2. To test the effectiveness of different types of rotary weed cutter in different

stages of crop and weeds (15,20,25 days).

3. To test the feasibility of using the developed implement in line sown paddy
crop under different field conditions (wet and dry).

4. To work out the energy and economics of weeding operation with the
developed implement.

1.1JUSTIFICATION

The first distinction to define a battery weeder can be about the power
source, so we may have manually or mechanical weeders. This feature has
different implications:

3
1. It can influence the operational speed, i.e. a battery operated weeder is
usually much faster than a manual one. The speed has and indirect effect over
the pulverization of the soil. Battery source implements pulverize it more than
the manual ones. Though, pulverization of the soil is not the main function,
because a weeder works at a shallow depth.

2. The battery weeder implements have a strong, direct impact over operational
drudgery, saving its operator (or more than one) from an otherwise very tiring
process, necessary when manual tools are involved. Even if not faster than the
manual counterpart, saving on human labours is one of the critical features in
adopting a battery machine.

3. It increases the relative importance of skills and competences in using the

weeder. Battery weeders are one step towards the standardization of practices,
e.g. it has a fixed source to rotate the motor, fixed direction of movement, and it
goes from one side of the field to another. Conversely, manual weeders still rely
heavily on the characteristics of the operator(s), which cannot obviously be
standardized. It is affecting speed, direction of movement, and the movement
needed to operate a weeder, e.g. back and forth or constant push.

4. In single hand weeding the labour requirement is as high as 300 to 1200 man
hr/ha. Availability of required number of labours during peak

season of the year is a problem. Most of the farmers adopt hand weeding for
control of weeds. Hand weeding has been found effective but it is expensive,
laborious and time consuming, therefore the battery weed control is best. Most
of the weeding equipments are indigenous developed and their dimensions and
shapes are left to the skill and imagination of the local artisans. However in
recent years, efforts were made to standardize these implements and to improve
their design, incorporating ergonomic principal, which are expected to enhance

4
the work output and workers efficiency, keeping in view her comfort and
welfare. Ergonomic dimensions corresponds best to the orientation of the
designed hardware which are registered in different positions and postures that
simulate the real working posture and positions in a conventional form. Hence
to achieve the better efficiency, human comfort and safety, it is necessary to
design the equipment keeping in view the operation capability and limitations.

Present Study

In Chhattisgarh, rice is grown by different methods, broadcasting, biasi,

drilled or line sowing, lehi and transplanting depending upon the type of soil,
topography of land, availability of water and labours. In order to increase the
productivity of direct seeded rice in state, effort have been made through line
sowing systems of cultivation, which not only maintain plant population but
also offers additive advantages, such as intercultural operations, proper weed
control and basal application of fertilizers.

The weed control operations are mainly done by three methods such as
biasi operation, hand weeding and using of herbicides. In biasi operation, weeds
are removed by using an indigenous plough after 35-40 DAS. By hand weeding,
weeds are removed by hand which is more effective but it is expensive, labour
intensive as well as time consuming. Nowadays herbicide usage is increasing.
In view point of labour shortage circumstances; it is preferred as a quick and
effective weed control method without damaging the rice plants. But, it has
adverse effects on human health and environment.

In order to assess the possibility of mechanization of the weeding

operation, the power operated single row active weeder are proposed to be
designed and developed considering the optimum shape, size and location of
cutting blades, evaluation of its performance with other weeding methods in
field conditions, optimisation of dimensions of machine for better performance.

5
The main objective is to design and fabrication of a power weeder, while
minimum damages done to rice plants, cost effectiveness, easy manuvelling,
low weight and fabrication by using freely available components and easy
maintenance are main features of this design. Here comes the relevance of
mechanised weeding, which is not a huge time consuming and significantly
improves weeding efficiency as well as the quality of weeding.

The objective of the present study as:

1. To fabricate and develop the battery weeder to remove the

unwanted plants in a crop.

2. To evaluate performance of developed machine.

3. Ergonomically evaluation of the developed machine.

6
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE SURVEY
Singh and Reddy (1981) The pre emergence of butaclor:

Reported that the pre emergence of butaclor produced the grain yield
equal to that of two hand weddings, which was maximum among all the other
weed control treatments tested.

Singh et al., (1982) one hand weeding at 45 DAS of rice:

The highest net return was obtained with two weedings at 15 and 30
DAS of rice. When herbicide application was combined with one hand weeding,
the highest net return was obtained with thiobencarb at 2 kg a.i./ha followed by
butachlor at 2 kg a.i./ha and thiobencarb at 1.5 kg a.i./ha each combined with
one hand weeding at 45 DAS.

Ramamoorthy and Balasubramanian “a field experiment on a clay loam”

(1991):

A field experiment on a clay loam during the monsoon season to develop

an economic integrated weed control method for upland direct seeded rice. The
treatments comprised pre- emergence Pendimethlin (0.75 and 1.25 kg/ha), pre
emergence Thiobencarb (1.0 and 1.5 kg/ha).

Ambujam et al., (1993) “a rotary rice weeder powered by a knapsack

type”:

Ambujam designed and developed a rotary rice weeder powered by a

knapsack type, 1 kW engine. The machine had an operational depth of 70 mm
with 80 percent weeding efficiency. The effective field capacity of the machine
was 0.022 ha/h with a performance index of 587. The average fuel consumption
of the machine was 0.86 L/h. The operational cost of the power weeder was
Rs.502.717- compared to Rs.437.5/- for hand weeding.

7
 Hand weeding and mechanical weeding using a rotary weeder, alone and
in combination. The major weeds were Echinochloa colona (E. colonum),
Eclipta prostrata and Cyperus rotundus. Weed dry matter 80 days after sowing
(DAS) was the lowest with the pendimethaline + hand weeding 30 DAS
treatment (45.6 kg/ha), followed by thiobencarb + hand weeding 30 DAS
treatment (58.2 kg/ha) and hand weeding 20, 35 and 50 DAS (75.0 kg).

Moorthy and Das (1992) “Field trials in sandy loam soil” for twiced results
in straw yields:

The field trials in sandy loam soil and evaluated effectiveness of 2 types of
manually operated implement (the rice wheel hoe and the finger weeder), used
either once at 15 days after sowing or twice (15 and 30 days after sowing) and
compared with hand weeding once at 15 days and twice at 15 and 30 days for
weed control in rice. The rice wheel hoe used twice resulted in the 80% weed
control and gave rice grain yield 1.65 t/ha and straw yields 3.54 t/ha. The finger
weeder used twice resulted in the weed control 86.7% and grain yields 2.18 t/ha
and the rice wheel hoe used twice resulted in straw yields.

All weed control treatments increased percentage weed control, grain

yields and straw yields from un-weeded control values of 0, 0.18-0.64 t/h and
0.47-1.63 t/h, respectively to 26.7-86.7, 0.5-2.18 t/h and 2.03-4.68 t/h,
respectively. The rice wheel hoe used twice resulted in the greatest benefit-cost
ratio.

Tewari et al., (1993) Straight blade for Push-Pull weeder :

The overall performance of a straight flat blade was the best. The field
efficiency was highest, physical damage to crop was the least and weed removal
per unit area was the greatest. The average power required by push-pull weeder

8
was 21.3 W.

Mishra et al., (1993) Field experiment ZARS for chemical weed control:

The Field Experiments at ZARS, Ambikapur and found that the

line sowing of Dhuria rice and weeding by Ambika paddy weeder gave higher
yield and economic return compared to chemical weed control.

Tajuddin (2006) electric motor operated weeder:

The electric motor operated weeder with 2.2 kW (3hp). The rated speed
of 3300 rpm at load was reduced to 60 rev/min of ground wheel by belt – pulley
and sprocket – chain mechanism. A sweep type weeding blade was designed for
structural strength.

9
 CHAPTER - III

METHODS AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter’s deals with the fabrication of the developed of a battery
operated weeder. The various factors involved in design were operation safety,
light weight of machine, overcomes man power scarcity saves time and cost,
easiness in fabrication are taken into account for its design procedure. The
operation and adjustment were made simple so that a village artesian can
fabricate, repair the weeder and farmer can operate the weeder easily.

The materials and methods about the development and testing of battery
weeder are discussed in this chapter.

3.1 EXPERIMENTAL SITE

The battery weeder was designed and developed in the departmental

workshop of the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Narayana engineering
college, gudur during the year 2019. The material and methods about the
development and testing of the weeder are discussed under the main headings
mentioned below:

3.1 Description of major components

3.2Design considerations

3.3 Design of worm gear

3.4 General specifications of the machine

3.5 Ergonomic design considerations of a power weeder

3.6 Calibration of battery weeder

The accompanying views and photographs show the general

constructional features of the machine.

10
METHODS OF WEED CONTROL

Weed control is the process of limiting weed infestation so that crops

could be growth profitably and other activities of man conducted efficiently.

The 5 general categories of weed control are:  Cultural Weed Control

 Mechanical Weed Control  Biological Weed Control  Chemical Weed
Control

CULTURAL WEED CONTROL

Another manual technique is the ‘cultural weed control’, which involves

cultivating the soil, then leaving it fallow for a week or so. When the initial
weeds sprout, the grower lightly hoes them away before planting the desired
crop. However, even a freshly cleared bed is susceptible to airborne seed from
elsewhere, as well as seed carried by passing animals on their fur, or from
imported manure.

MECHANICAL WEED CONTROL

Mechanical weed control is any physical activity that inhibits unwanted

plant growth.[1] Mechanical, or manual, weed control techniques manage weed
populations through physical methods that remove, injure, kill, or make the
growing conditions unfavorable. Some of these methods cause direct damage to
the weeds through complete removal or causing a lethal injury. Other
techniques may alter the growing environment by eliminating light, increasing
the temperature of the soil

BIOLOGICAL METHODS

A biological weed control regiment can consist of biological control

agents, bio herbicides, use of grazing animals, and protection of natural
predators. Post-dispersal, weed seed predators, like ground beetles and small
vertebrates, can substantially contribute to the weed regulation by removing
weed seeds from the soil surface and thus reduce seed bank size. Several studies

11
provided evidence for the role of invertebrates to the biological control of weeds

CHEMICAL WEED CONTROL

Chemical weed control involves anything other than applying

manufactured chemicals. Typically a combination of methods are used to
achieve satisfactory control. Sulfur in some circumstances is accepted within
British Soil Association standard weed control can also be achieved by the use
of herbicides. Selective herbicides kill certain targets while leaving the desired
crop relatively unharmed. Some of these act by interfering with the growth of
the weed and are often based on plant

NEED OF BATTERY WEEDER

Battery operated method of weed control is more prominent then manual

and mechanical methods. However it does not show any adverse effects on the
environment are making farmers to consider and accept battery method of weed
control. It is an effective instrument to reduce environment pollution and
enhance the organic farming.

MAJOR COMPONENTS IN BATTERY WEEDER

3.1.1 MAIN FRAME:

The fame is made up of G.I iron. It is cylindrical in shape. It has a

platform to Place the battery and the wiper motor. The length of the main frame
is 150cm and the diameter of the G.I pipe is 2.64cm. The distance between the
center of the wheel to the main frame is 60cm. The battery is bolted to the frame
on the front side. And the wiper motor is clamped to the other side of the
handle.

12
 Fig: Main frame

3.1.2 WIPER MOTOR

It is the heart of the machine. The motor will run with the help of battery.
The main application of the wiper motor is to run at the slow speed.it consists of
a worm wheel to reduce the motor speed .the shaft is connected to the worm
wheel while the motor is rotate the shaft is also rotate.

Fig: wiper motor

3.1.3BATTERY

It is the source to transmit the power to the motor the specification of the
battery is 12V 12Ah the connection of the battery is the first terminal connected
to the motor and second terminal is connected to the switch. The rotating speed
of the motor is depend up on the capacity of the battery.

13
 Fig: Battery

3.1.4 Worm gear

The worm gear is fitted to the motor. The gear arrangement is the worm
meshes with a worm gear. The two elements are also called the worm screw
and worm wheel. The shaft is directly connected to the worm gear. While the
gear is rotate the shaft is also rotate. Like other gear arrangements, a worm drive
can reduce rotational speed or transmit higher torque

Fig: worm wheel

14
3.1.5 HOE BLADES

The hoe blades are made up of mild steel. The blades are connected to the
links by means of bolts and nuts. It is used to uproot the weed plants and rotates
with the help of lever crank mechanism. First we take the area of the M.S plate
of 7.5cm ×9.0 cm and maintaining of 40 degrees angle. Cut according to
dimensions which are represented below.

Fig: Hoe blades

3.1.6 SOLAR PANEL

The renewable energy in the form of sunlight was absorbed by the solar
panel which converts that light into electricity to provide power for electrical
loads. This panel is mounted on the frame with help of supporting structures
shown in Fig1. A solar module or PV module is packaged; series connected
many individual solar cells. A single solar cell cannot produce required power
output so multiple solar cells are installed in a module to get required output.
Under the standard test conditions each module rated DC output power is ranges
from 100 to 360W. PV system generates and supplies electricity for the trading
and building applications.

15
METHODOLOGY
MECHANISM USED:

Slider crank mechanism is a four-link mechanism with three revolute

joints and one prismatic, or sliding, joint.[1] The rotation of the crank drives the
linear movement the slider, or the expansion of gases against a sliding piston in
a cylinder can drive the rotation of the crank.

There are two types of slider-cranks: in-line and offset.

1. In-line: An in-line slider-crank has its slider positioned so the line of

travel of the hinged joint of the slider passes through the base joint of the crank.
This creates a symmetric slider movement back and forth as the crank rotates.

2. Offset: If the line of travel of the hinged joint of the slider does not
pass through the base pivot of the crank, the slider movement is not symmetric.
It moves faster in one direction than the other. This is called a quick-return
mechanism

16
 Fig: slider crank mechanism

An in-line crank slider is oriented in a way in which the pivot point of the
crank is coincident with the axis of the linear movement. The follower arm,
which is the link that connects the crank arm to the slider, connects to a pin in
the center of sliding object. This pin is considered to be on the linear movement
axis. Therefore, to be considered an in-line crank slider, the pivot point of the
crank arm must be in-line with this pin point. The stroke of in-line crank slider
is defined as the maximum linear distance the slider may travel between the two
extreme points of its motion. With an in-line crank slider, the motion of the
crank and follower links is symmetric about the sliding axis. This means that the
crank angle required to execute a forward stroke is equivalent to the angle
required to perform a reverse stroke. For this reason, the in-line slider-crank
mechanism produces balanced motion. This balanced motion implies other
ideas as well. Assuming the crank arm is driven at a constant velocity, the time
it takes to perform a forward stroke is equal to the time it takes to perform a
reverse stroke.

3.2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

The Main aim is to increase the use of the battery operated weeder in
different agricultural lands i.e. removing of the unwanted plants and weeding in
line sown crops with little and minor adjustments with the battery power.

In general the following were the considerations while designing the

battery weeder:

1. Weight of body should be minimum (less than 30 kg).

2. The cutting blade need to be covered and accommodated in between

the two crop rows (20 cm apart) and the crop plants should not be damaged
during cutting of the weeds. 3. For different types of operations there should be
minimum and easy adjustments in the machine 4. There should be the provision

17
to change the type of blade whenever desired for different type of work i.e.
weed removing and tilling etc. 5. The blade could be rotating in clockwise
direction to remove the unwanted plant in the farming land 6. The operator
should walk in such a way that while moving in rows in forward direction, the
weeds which are cut by the weeder could be rubbed and buried into the soil by
his feet. 7. The soil needs to be loosened gently by the battery weeder, looking
to the load on the motor. 8. During the operation, the operator should be safe
and weeder should not cause any injury to him. And the operation should be
steady and without interruptions. 9. The working posture of the operator should
be in easiest upright 10. The spare parts should be locally available. 11. The
cutting edge of the blade should be sharp. 12. The machine should be easily
transportable.

3.3 DESIGN OF WORM GEAR

A two tooth right hand worm transmits 2 kW at 2950 rpm to a 32 tooth

worm gear. The worm gear is of 4 mm module, 20 pressure and a face width of
30 mm. The worm is of pitch diameter of 50 mm with a face width of 65 mm.
The worm is made of steel case carburized OQ and T and ground. The worm
gear is made of phosphor bronze

18
 Fig:design of worm wheel

DESIGN OF CUTTING BLADES:

Blades of the rotor are the components which directly interact with soil
and as such have major impact on the operation of the weeders. The material
used for manufacturing machines could be changed but this increases the
associated costs significantly. The way of reducing the power requirement and
to improve the life of machine is to improve geometry of blade. The interaction
between soil and machines takes place at the blades; thus by improving their
geometry the power required and the size of machine will reduce. The blade is
designed & developed using the popular blades designs used in market available
weeders as base. The finalized geometry not only reduces the power required
but also decreases the cost of manufacture. The weight of machine is also
reduced as smaller power source

There will be required to power the machine which will reduce the
operating cost of the machine. In rotary weeders, blades are attached to a flange
mounted on a rotating shaft usually by nuts & bolts. Commonly three types of

19
blade geometries are used as blades for weeders and tillers namely, v-shaped
blades, C-shaped blades and J-shaped blades. The C- shaped blades have greater
curvature, so they are recommended for penetration in hard field and better
performance in heavy and wet soils. The v-shaped blades are used for
loosening, destroying the soil surface compaction and giving better ventilation
to the soil, generally used for tilling hard and wet soils whereas L-shaped blades
are the most common widely used for the fields with crop residue, removing
weeds

3.4 GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS OF THE MACHINE

The General specification of the battery operated weeder machine is

given below:

PARTICULAR SPECIFICATION
Power source Battery 12V, 12 Amp
Number of blades 2
Wheel Diameter 40cm
Weeding mechanism Slider crank mechanism
Weight of the unit 15kg
Width of the cut 12cm
3.5 ERGONOMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATION OF A BATTERY
WEEDER:

Ergonomics is the scientific study of the relationship between man and

his working environment. Its aim is to help the individual members of the work-
force to produce at levels economically acceptable to the employer. During
designing this weeder the human operator was considered as an integral part of
the system and due considerations were given to his capabilities and limitations.

In case of battery operated weeder there are no any vibrations. The capacity of
the battery is 12v, the motor will rotate at speed ranges from 70to80 rpm.
Because of the slow rotation of the motor the soil will remove easily.

20
 CHAPTER-IV

EXPERIMENTAL DISCUSSION

21
4.1WORKING OF BATTERY WEEDER

Battery operated weeder is works on the principle of slider crank

mechanism, it consists of a four links a battery, wiper motor, handle, wheels
and hoe blades. The power source is given by a battery. It is the one of most
important component in a battery weeder. The source from the battery is go
through the wiper motor. The wiper motor is the heart of the machine. With the
help of the battery the motor will rotate. The speed of the motor is ranges from
70 to 80rpm.it is the main advantage of using wiper motor

The links are fixed to the wiper motor while the motor is rotate the links
are also rotate. The hoe blades which are connected to the links are also rotate.
With the help of blades we can dig the soil or we can remove the unwanted
plants grown in the crops. The depth of remove of soil is done by manually
according to our requirement. The wheels which are made up of plastic used to
move the machine front and back. A shaft is used to connect the two wheels.
The roller bearings are fitted to the wheels for the smooth rotation of the
wheels. The frame of weeder is in “ T “ shape. The frame holds the all the parts
of the machine. A switch which one terminal is directly connected to the motor
and another terminal is connected to the battery. When the switch is the battery
will give power to the wiper motor and the motor is rotate. The shaft is also
rotate while the shaft is rotate the links are also rotate. With the help of blades
we can dig the soil and remove the unwanted plants.

22
 Fig: pictorial representation of battery weeder

4.2 WORKING OF WIPER MOTOR

Wiper motors are devices in the wiper system that functions on a power
supply in order to move the wiper blades in a smooth motion. Like other
motors, the wiper motor rotates continuously in one direction which is
converted into a back and forth motion. Its composition entails a lot of
mechanical linkages each playing a role in initiating the movement. The
gearhead motor is the type of wiper motor known for its abundance in torque.

Power Source In order for the wiper motor to move it needs a power source.
The different power sources are the car batteries, voltages (12volts DC), current
(minimum of 1.6 amps at 70 rpm; 1 amps at 41 rpm), computer batteries
(12volts output) and other battery supplies that doe does not exceed the limit of
12 volts otherwise the motor is bound to overheat Wiring and Electrical
Terminals Another thing to consider in the configuration of a wiper motor is the
wiring and electrical terminals. These wirings electrical terminal have the
purpose of organizing the configurations for wiper motor speed or mode. The
number of electrical terminals can range from five to 12 slots for low speeds,

23
moderate speeds, high speed, very high speed, manual function, off mode,
common terminal and the park switch.

Fig: wiper motor

4.3 WORKING OF WORM WHEEL

A worm drive is a gear arrangement in which a worm which is a gear in the

form of a screw meshes with a worm gear which is similar in appearance to a
spur gear. The two elements are also called the worm screw and worm wheel.
The terminology is often confused by imprecise use of the term worm gear to
refer to the worm, the worm gear, or the worm drive as a unit. Like other gear
arrangements, a worm drive can reduce rotational speed or transmit higher
torque. A worm is an example of a screw, one of the six simple machines.

One of the major advantages of worm gear drive units are that they can
transfer motion in 90 degrees.

24
 Fig: worm wheel

4.3.1 DIRECTION OF TRANSMISSSION

Unlike with ordinary gear trains, the direction of transmission input shaft vs
output shaft is not reversible when using large reduction ratios. This is due to
the greater friction involved between the worm and worm-wheel, and is
especially prevalent when a single start (one spiral) worm is used. This can be
an advantage when it is desired to eliminate any possibility of the output driving
the input. If a multi start worm (multiple spirals) is used then the ratio reduces
accordingly and the braking effect of a worm and worm-gear may need to be
discounted, as the gear may be able to drive the worm.

Worm gear configurations in which the gear cannot drive the worm are
called self-locking. Whether a worm and gear is self-locking depends on the
lead angle, the pressure angle, and the coefficient of friction.

25
 Fig: power transmission of worm wheel

MECHANISM OF LINKAGE

The mechanism used for the linkages is the slider crank mechanism.
There are three links used in the battery operated weeder. The source from
battery is used to run the motor .the shaft is directly connected to the links.
While the shaft is rotate the linkages are also rotate which are connected to the
motor. The shortest link of diameter is 11cm and the longest link of the
diameter is 42cm. the blades are connected to the linkages by means of bolt and
nut. The links will operate by the mechanism of the slider crank. The first link is
fixed and the other two links are rotate. The rotation of the links is in clock wise
direction to dig the soil. We can change the motion into anticlockwise direction
by change the connections of the battery terminal. This is the mechanism used
to operate the battery operated weeder.

26
 Fig: linkages

4.4 CALIBRATION OF BATTERY WEEDER

1. Moisture content of soil

2. Speed of operation

3. Depth of cut

4. Width of cut

5. Actual field capacity

6. Field efficiency

7. Row to row spacing

8. Number of plants and weeds per m2

4.4.1 MOISTURE CONTENT OF SOIL

Five soil samples were collected randomly from the plot. The moisture
content of each sample was calculated by the gravimetric method (RNAM
procedure).

Moisture content (%db.) = 𝑊,−𝑊2 𝑊2 x 100

27
Where,

WI = initial weight of soil sample, gram

WI = oven dry weight of soil sample, gram

4.4.2 MEASUREMENT OF SPEED OF OPERATION

For the power weeder, the speed was measured by recording the time required
to cover 20 m distance by using a stopwatch (RNAM procedure).

Speed (km/h) = 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒

4.4.3 THEORETICAL FIELD CAPACITY

The theoretical field capacity was determined by taking the theoretical

width covered by the weeder and the field coverage area that would be obtained
if the weeder was operating continuously without interruptions and the time
required to cut the weed in a row length of 20 m was recorded and the average
speed in km/h was calculated. The theoretical field capacity was determined by
using the formula as follows:

Theoretical field capacity:

Where,

S = speed, km/h

W = theoretical width

4.4.4 ACTUAL FIELD CAPACITY

The power weeder was continuously operated in the field for the specific
time period. For calculating actual field capacity, the time consumed for actual
work and that lost for the other activities such as turning was taken into

28
consideration. The length and width of plot was measured and the area covered
during the testing period was determined and expressed in ha / h

S = 𝐴 𝑇𝑝 + 𝑇𝐼

Where

S = actual field capacity, ha./h

A = area covered, ha

Tp = productive time, h

TI = non productive time, h

4.4.5 FIELD EFFICIENCY

It is the ratio of actual field capacity to theoretical field capacity,

expressed as percent. It includes the effect of time lost in the field and the
failure to utilize the full width of machine. It was calculated by using the
following formula.

Field efficiency (%) =𝐴𝐹𝐶 𝑇𝐹𝐶

X 100

WEEDING EFFICIENCY

It is the ratio between the number of weeds removed by a weeder to the number
present in a unit area and is expressed as a percentage. The spots where such
counts were taken were randomly selected and a ring covering an area of 1 m2
was used for sampling.

Weeding efficiency =𝑊,−𝑊2 𝑊, X 100

3.6.7 Performance index

29
It is a measurement of performance of a weeder and is directly Proportional to
the area per unit time, the weeding efficiency, the quality of work (Plants) and
inversely proportional to the power required (Rangaswamy Et al. 1993).

Field capacity x Plant damage x weeding efficiency

P.I. =Power inputwas taken for the energy calculation. Data collected
were multiplied by respective energy conversion coefficients as suggested by
Binning et al. (1984).

4.4.6 COST OF OPERATION

Cost of weeding operation was worked out on the basis of prevailing

input and market price of the implement and rental wages of operators and
labours.

4.4.7 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Data collected from the experiment on various aspects were tabulated and
analyzed statistically by using the techniques of analysis of variance.

ACTUAL WORKING DEPTH OF CUT

The depth of cut of the machine with different blades was measured in
the field by measuring the depth of soil layer tilled by the blade in a row. This
was done with the help of two scales, one placed in a horizontal position on the
ground and another in the tilled soil perpendicular to the first scale.

ACTUAL WORKING WIDTH OF CUT

The width of cut of the machine with different blades was measured in
the field by observing the strip of soil and weeds cut in a row.

4.5 FEASIBILITY OF THE IMPLEMENT

30
 Feasibility of the implement means the practicability of using the
implement. It tells whether the implement can be used successfully or not in that
particular field condition. The power weeder was operated in dry as well as in
wet field condition. The feasibility was assessed on the following parameters
considering the operator's experience.

(i) Ease in operation and control

(ii) Comfort in mounting the engine

(iii) Vibrations

(iv) safety

(v) Cutting depth and width adjustments

(vi) Breakdown

(vii) Transportation

(viii) Clogging

(ix) Performance under dry field condition

(x) Performance under wet field condition

(xi) Operation in line sown crop at recommended stage of weeding i.e. 15 to 25

DAS.

31
 CHAPTER -V

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter deals with performance of the battery weeder to remove the
unwanted plants. The performance of the battery weeder and corresponding
recommendations are also described in this chapter. Field performance test was
carried out in control condition as far as possible. The field performance results
are shown and described in this chapter. The method of weed management
practice such as, mechanical weeder is compared with battery weeder for
controlling weed. After satisfactory running of the machine with the different
blades, the performance was evaluated in line plants.

The performance of the battery weeder and other different weed

management practices are expressed in terms of weeding efficiency, plant
damaged, field efficiency, and cost of operation were calculated for 15, 25 and
35 days for transplantation. In battery weeder, the power transmission
mechanism (worm and worm gear arrangement), rotary cutting blades (“v”
shaped), rotary shaft, handle, weeding width adjustments and other. The
designer of battery weeder worked satisfactorily. The front mounted, two
flanges having cutting blades fulfilled the weeding process satisfactorily by
cutting and uprooting weeds. The sharpened ends provided on the cutting blades
helped to cut the soil and provided a minimum tillage in between the crop rows.

COST COMPARISON:

The cost of operation of weeder was compared with manual operation in terms
of field capacity. The result of comparison is shown in figure

32
Fig : The cost operation of battery Weeder in comparison with manual operation

The manual-back-loaded power weeder was designed and developed

using power unit of knapsack power sprayer in the Workshop of Faculty of
Agricultural Engineering I.G.K.V., Raipur and field- testing was carried out in
the paddy field during the year 2001-2002. After satisfactory running of the
machine with the different blades, the performance was evaluated in line sown
paddy field and the data were statistically analysed and presented in the
Appendices. The results are presented under the following heads.

1. Actual field capacity

2. Field efficiency.

3. Weeding efficiency.

4. Fuel consumption.

5. Working width and depth of cut

6. Feasibility of the implement

7. Energy requirement

8. Economics of operation.

33
5.1 ACTUAL FIELD CAPACITY :

Actual field capacity of the machine with the different blades and on different
crop/weed stage was determined as described in the chapter III, and the sample
calculation is presented in Appendix VII. The statistically analysed results with
mean actual field capacity are shown in Table 4.1 (a) and (b). The data reveal
that the maximum field capacity was found with the circular blade, B3(0.158
ha/day) which was significantly higher than the other two types , knife cum peg
type blade, Bi(0.135 ha/day) and L shaped cross blade, 82(0.139 ha/day) at five
percent level of significance. The crop/ weed stages have not shown any
significant difference in the field capacity.

5.2 FIELD EFFICIENCY :

The statistically analysed data of field efficiency with its mean values and CDs
are presented in Table 4.1 (a) and (b) and sample calculations are given in
Appendix VII. The data of the Table 4.1(a) and (b) reveal that the maximum
field efficiency was recorded with the blade Bi(96.58 %) followed by the blade
83(96.09%) which were statistically at par at five percent level of significance.
The field efficiency of the machine with the blade 82 was lowest (92.98 %). The
Table indicates that there was no significant effect of paddy crop/ weed stages
on field efficiency.

5.3 WEEDING EFFICIENCY :

Weeding efficiency of the machine with the different blades and on different
crop/weed stage was determined as described in chapter III. The statistically
analysed result of field efficiency is shown in Table 4.2(a) and (b). The data
reveal that the maximum weeding efficiency was found with the blade B2(89.72
%) which was significantly higher than other two types B| (82.44 %) and
63(77.28 %) at five percent level of significance. The crop/ weed stages have
not shown any significant difference in the weeding efficiency.

34
5.4 ACTUAL WORKING WIDTH OF CUT:

The width of cut of the machine with different blades was measured in the field
by observing the strip of soil and weeds cut in a row. The statistically analysed
result of actual working width of cut is shown in Table 4.3 (a) and (b). The data
reveal that the maximum width of cut was found with the blade 63(13.73 cm)
followed by Bi(13.59 cm) which were statistically at par at five percent level of
significance. The width of cut of the machine with the blade 82 was lowest
(11.66 cm).

5.5 ACTUAL WORKING DEPTH OF CUT:

The statistically analysed result of actual working depth of cut is shown in

Table 4.3 (a) and (b). The data reveal that the maximum depth of cut was found
with the blade BI (2.47 cm) followed by 62(2.03 cm) which was statistically at
par. No depth of operation was found with the blade 63 (0 cm).

5.6 FEASIBILITY OF THE IMPLEMENT IN DIFFERENT FIELD

CONDITIONS :

The Feasibility testing of the developed implement was carried out in the
different field conditions and it was observed that when the implement was used
in dry field conditions (moisture 9.33 %) it performed well with all three types
of blade [i.e.Bi(knife cum peg type blade), B2(L-shapd cross blade), B3(circular
blade)]. The data on field capacity, field efficiency and weeding efficiency are
given in Appendix V. A rectangular cross shape blade was fabricated for
operation in wet land conditions.

35
 CHAPTER-VI

SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURURE SCOPE

Weeds interfere with agricultural production by adding to the cost of

production, increasing labour, harboring diseases and pests of crops and
reducing yields if not checked. Losses in yield ranging from 9 to 60 percent or
more have been reported. (Smith 1961, Mani el al. 1968 and Ghosh
eta/.1975).The competition becomes more serious in upland rice than in
transplanted rice because the seeds of rice and weeds germinate
simultaneously .In mechanical control method the weeding tools and
implements are used for control of weeds. One approach in row crops is to
remove the weed population between the rows mechanically leaving only a
small fraction in the row. Weeding by rotary weeders, rotating the blade in
horizontal axis is one of the principles of weeding.

It is observed that the weeding operation is done once or twice in a

month. Thus the machine remains in idle condition for a long time reducing the
battery life. So an implement is to be designed which can perform more than
one operation using the same prime mover. Looking to these problems and to
give a new direction to the weeding operation an attempt was made to design,
develop and test a manual-back-loaded power weeder. The fabrication was done
in the Faculty of Agricultural Engineering I.G.K.V., Raipur (C.G) and the
testing was carried out to assess the technical and economic performance of the
developed power weeder. It was tested on the basis of field capacity, field
efficiency, weeding efficiency, performance index, energy consumption and
cost of operation. This study revealed the meaningful findings, which may be
developed further. Thus on the basis of the information observed during the
study, the following conclusions could be drawn.

36
i) The overall performance of the battery weeder during the operation inline
sown paddy crop was found satisfactory.

ii) In case of weeding it was observed that the engine stalled when ever the
depth of operation was tried to increase beyond 4 cm.

iii) The battery weeder was suitable for loosening the soil gently up to the depth
of four cm.

iv) From the study it is concluded that the machine has potentials of being
developed into a multipurpose machine with suitable attachments for other
operations likecutting of bushes and grasses at the field bunds,

v) When the battery weeder was operated in submerged field condition, the
uprooting and incorporation of weeds into mud was observed with the knife
cum peg type blade, L-shaped cross blade and cross blade,

vi) The average actual field capacity was maximum (0.158 ha/day) with the
circular blade and minimum (0.135 ha/day) with the knife cum v- type blade,

vii) The maximum weeding efficiency obtained was 89.72 percent with the v-
shaped cross blade.

ix) The maximum field efficiency observed was 96.58 percent.

x) Only one operator (labour) was required to perform the operation.

xi) After the continuous operation of thirty minutes, the operator was given the
rest often minutes,

xii) The width and depth of cut could be adjusted by the operator as per his
desire by tilting the blade,

xiii) No crop damage was observed during the operation since the diameter of
cutting blade was kept less than 20 cm and due to presence of side guards.

37
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH WORK :

1) The developed battery weeder should be tested in different crops.

2) The machine may be operated by the battery with low capacity having higher
than the present one.

3) The gears can be provided to change the working of blade from horizontal
cutting to the cutting in vertical axis.

4) Weeder is to be designed which can perform more than one operation using
the same prime mover i.e. both for wet and dry land condition.

5) The developed battery weeder needs further improvement in width

adjustment.

6) Different types of blades may be designed and tested.

38
 CHAPTER-VII

CONCLUSION

Weed control is one of the most difficult tasks in agriculture that accounts
for a considerable share of the cost involved in agriculture production. Farmers
generally expressed their concern for the effective weed control measures to
arrest the growth and propagation of weeds. Lack of man power has been
identified as one of the major problems for the sustainability of the rice
industry. Hence transplanters and seeders were well developed as a step for
mechanization. However, weeding method is still not well developed up to
mechanization. Mechanical weed control not only uproots the weeds between
the crop rows but also keeps the soil surface loose, ensuring better soil aeration
and water intake capacity. Weeding by mechanical devices reduces the cost of
labour and also saves time.

Power weeders are one step towards the standardization of practices,

e.g. it has a fixed max rotational speed, fixed direction of movement, and it goes
from one side of the field to another. Conversely, manual weeders still rely
heavily on the characteristics of the operator(s), which cannot obviously be
standardized. It is affecting speed, direction of movement, and the movement
needed to operate a weeder, e.g. back and forth or constant push.

Looking to these problems and to give a new direction to the weeding

operation an attempt was made to design, develop and test single row power
weeder for rice. Design and development of power weeder would serve the
purpose of minimum damages done to rice plants, cost effectiveness, easy
manuvelling, low weight and fabrication by using freely available components
and easy maintenance are main features of this design. Here comes the
relevance of mechanised weeding, which is not a huge time consuming and
significantly improves weeding efficiency as well as the quality of weeding.

39
 The developed power weeder was tested at different field conditions and
on the basis of those results obtained. Design parameters and their application in
developing power weeder for rice to be established. Hence, the study was
undertaken with the following objectives:

1. To design and develop the single row active power weeder for rice.

2. To evaluate performance of developed machine.

3. Ergonomical evaluation of the developed machine.

1. The performance of rice weeder was found excellently on The testing was
done in research field of SVCAET & RS, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering,
I.G.K.V., and Raipur and statically data was analyzed. The testing was carried
out to assess the technical and economic performance of the developed power
weeder. It was tested on the basis of field capacity, field efficiency, weeding
efficiency, performance index, energy consumption and cost of operation. This
study revealed the meaningful findings, which may be developed further. Thus
on the basis of the information observed during the study, the following
conclusions could be drawn.wet condition.

2. The working width of the developed machine should be adjustable between

140 mm to 250 mm.

3. Using four blades with forward speed 2.48 km/h and depth of operation
ranged from 3- 4.2 cm, with fuel consumption of 0.55 l/h, lower value of plant
damage and low power required from engine to operate the weeder.

4. The minimum value of effective field capacity was 33.33 h/ha and was
obtained by using eight blades, weeder forward speed 1.8 km/h, and maximum
depth of operation was found 6.2 cm but due to more depth of cut, fuel
consumption increases as 0.7 l/h.

40
5. The weeding efficiency found by using four blade, six blade and eight blade
as 82.92%, 88.62% and 87.75% respectively at 35 DAS.

6. The operating cost of the rotary rice weeder was Rs.980/ha compared to Rs.
2300/ha for manual weeding

7. The saving in cost of weeding was 60% and saving in time was 65%
compared to manual weeding.

8. The physiological cost was found out and the mean working heart rate of
operator was 109 beats min-1. The operation was graded as “moderately heavy”

9. The oxygen uptake in terms of VO2 max was above the acceptable limit of
35% of VO2 max indicating that the power rice weeder was could not be
operated continuously for 8 hours without frequent rest-pauses. It is suggested
that two operators may be engaged in shift for a day long work with power rice
weeder.

SUGGESTION FOR FUTURE WORK

1. Weeder is to be designed which can perform more than one operation using
the same prime mover i.e. both for wet and dry land condition.

2. The developed power weeder needs further improvement in width

adjustment.

41
REFERENCE

Chauhan Saurabh. 2015. Motor torque calculations for electric vehicle.

International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research 4(8): 126–7.

Gavali M and Kulkarni S. 2014. Comparative analysis of portable weeders and

powers tillers in the Indian market. International Journal of Innovative Science
Engineering and Technology 3(4):11004–13.

Heidary B, Hassan-Beygi S R and Ghobadian B. 2014. Investigating operator

vibration exposure time of 13 hp power tiller fuelled by diesel and biodiesel
blends. Research in Agricultural Engineering 60: 134–41

. Kankal U S, Khmabalkar V P, Karale D S and Nage S M. 2014. Effect of

operating speed, moisture content of soil and approach angle of sweep on
specific draft and weeding efficiency. International Journal of Engineering and
Science 3(6): 1–9.

Kepner R A, Bainer R and Barger E L. 2005. Principles of Farm Machinery.

CBS Publishers & Distributors, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. Lee S W, Herage T
and Young B. 2004. Emission reduction potential from the combustion of soy
methyl ester fuel blended with petroleum distillate fuel. CANMET Energy
Technology Centre 83: 1607–13.

Samuel D V K, Sharma P K and Sinha J P. 2016. Solar-powered evaporatively

cooled vegetable vending cart. Current Science 111(12): 2020–22.

Singh S P. 2005. Ergonomical evaluation of manually operated cleaner-graders,

fertilizer broadcaster, seed drills and hand ridger with farm women. Final
Report of Project No. 496. National Research Centre for Women in Agriculture

42
(Bhopal Sub-centre), ICAR-Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering,
Bhopal, India. Singh S P, Singh M K and Solanki R C. 2016.Design and
development of four-wheel weeder for wide-row crops. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Sciences 86(1): 42–49.

Sinha J P, Singh J K, Kumar A and Agarwal K N. 2018. Development of solar

powered knapsack sprayer.Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 88(4): 590–
5.

43