Skip to content
All case studies
03 · Industrial Machine Design2018 – 2022

Agricultural Machinery Systems

A family of agro-processing machines — rotary dryers, conveyors, palletizers, and dust collectors — designed for continuous duty in abrasive, dust-laden plants and detailed so that wear parts could actually be reached.

AutoCADInventorSolidWorksStructural sizingThermal sizingDrive selection

Background

Agro-processing plants run near-continuously in seasonal campaigns. During a campaign, an hour of unplanned downtime cannot be recovered later, which changes what 'good design' means: availability dominates rated capacity.

Problem

Machinery specified on peak throughput alone loses more capacity to downtime and maintenance access than it gains in rate. The failure is not usually a component — it is a design that assumed the plant would stop conveniently.

Objectives

  • Size each machine for continuous rather than intermittent duty
  • Make wear parts reachable without major disassembly
  • Contain dust well enough to protect both the product and the machinery
  • Deliver a coherent family of machines rather than individually optimised units

Constraints

  • Abrasive, dust-laden operating environment
  • Local fabrication capability and available material sections
  • Client capital budget
  • Installation into existing plant layouts with fixed interfaces

Engineering decisions

Conservative drive and structural margins in place of minimum-mass optimisation

Alternatives considered

  • Size tightly to calculated duty — Lower cost per unit, but leaves no margin for the abrasive wear and load variation this duty actually sees.

Why this one

In continuous seasonal operation the cost of a stoppage exceeds the cost of the margin by a wide margin. Sizing for the worst realistic case rather than the nominal one is the cheaper decision over a campaign.

Trade-off accepted

Higher material and drive cost, and heavier structures to install.

Detailed for maintenance access even where it complicated fabrication

Alternatives considered

  • Simplest weldment, access via partial disassembly — Cheaper to build, but converts routine wear-part replacement into a shift-long job during the campaign.

Why this one

Access is a one-time design cost and a recurring operational saving. Optimising the build and paying for it every maintenance cycle is the wrong side of that trade.

Trade-off accepted

More complex weldments and additional fabrication hours per unit.

Design process

  1. Captured duty, throughput, and plant interface requirements with the client
  2. Sized structures, drives, and thermal duty for continuous operation
  3. Modelled each machine and resolved maintenance access in the layout
  4. Produced fabrication drawings with tolerancing appropriate to local capability
  5. Supported fabrication and resolved shop queries
  6. Attended installation and commissioning on site

Simulation & analysis

No FEA was performed. Structural and thermal sizing was by hand calculation against standard practice with explicit margin, which suited both the load cases and the fabrication tolerances available.

Manufacturing

Fabricated from standard steel sections and plate by local workshops, with commercial drives, bearings, and filtration; assembled and commissioned on site.

Validation

Each machine commissioned on site against the client's throughput and continuous-operation requirements, with drive loads and thermal behaviour checked under real product rather than at no load.

Tests run

  • No-load and loaded commissioning runs
  • Throughput verification with production material
  • Drive current and temperature checks under sustained load
  • Dust containment assessment during operation

Results

  • Value not published

    machines delivered into production, and resulting plant uptime

    Basis: delivered-unit record and client operational reporting

    Client confidential. Client names and operational figures are not published. Exact delivered-unit counts pending owner confirmation.

Impact: Delivered a machine family that holds capacity through a full processing campaign, with maintenance that fits into the plant's schedule rather than interrupting it.

Lessons learned

  • The maintenance-access argument was the hardest to sell and the most consistently vindicated. It is invisible at quotation and obvious in the second season.
  • Designing to local fabrication capability rather than to ideal tolerances produced better-performing machines. A drawing that the workshop cannot hold is not a specification, it is a source of variation.
  • Dust containment should have been designed in from the first machine rather than improved across the family. Retrofitting containment is always worse than designing for it.

Future improvements

  • Instrument drive load and bearing temperature so wear is trended instead of discovered
  • Standardise wear parts across the machine family to reduce the client's spares inventory
  • Design the containment system once, for the family, rather than per machine

Technologies used

CAD
AutoCADInventorSolidWorks
Process
Structural sizingThermal sizingDrive selectionFabrication drawingsOn-site commissioning
Hardware
Rotary dryersConveyorsPalletizersDust collectors

For hiring teams

Evaluating someone for a manufacturing or quality role?

I can walk through process data, validation methodology, and the shop-floor decisions behind any of this work in detail.

Discuss an engineering roleRésumé (PDF, 76 KB)