International Journal of Food Properties

ISSN: 1094-2912 (Print) 1532-2386 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ljfp20

Selected Physical Properties of Peanuts

I. D. Akcali , A. Ince & E. Guzel

To cite this article: I. D. Akcali , A. Ince & E. Guzel (2006) Selected Physical Properties of
Peanuts, International Journal of Food Properties, 9:1, 25-37, DOI: 10.1080/10942910500471636

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10942910500471636

Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

Published online: 06 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7057

View related articles

Citing articles: 11 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ljfp20
International Journal of Food Properties, 9: 25–37, 2006
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1094-2912 print / 1532-2386 online
DOI: 10.1080/10942910500471636

SELECTED PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF PEANUTS

I. D. Akcali, A. Ince, and E. Guzel

University of Cukurova, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural
Machinery, Adana, Turkey

Selected physical properties of peanuts, which are effective in case of mobility or immobility
were examined. For this aim, firstly, the geometrical shape of peanuts was defined and the
specific mass and friction coefficient, which are quantitative measures of the inertia and
frictional resistance that determine the ability of movement, were obtained. A geometrical
shape consisting of a cylinder and two hemispheres at the ends has found quantitative
appropriateness of at most 91% and at least 34% for the varieties in Turkish Standards. A
variation of 0.37–0.58 g cm−3 for the solid density and that of 0.21–0.28 g cm−3 for the bulk
density of hulled peanut have been found. The solid densities of kernel and shell have been
determined in the range of 0.88–0.93 g cm−3 and 0.27–0.30 g cm−3, respectively. Their aver-
age bulk densities have been observed within 0.54–0.59 g cm−3 and 0.066–0.077 g cm−3
intervals, respectively. The angle of repose and internal friction angle measured by two
methods have been in close agreement—around a 29° value. The friction coefficient
has been found to be influenced by the materials in contact to a great extent, ranging from
0.23 for kernel on sheet metal up to 0.76 for hulled peanuts on an iron grate perpendicular
to flow.

Keywords: Physical properties, Geometric model, Specific mass, Friction coefficient, Peanut.

INTRODUCTION
Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) are one of the important oil crops in the world. Its
seeds are a rich source of edible oil (43–55%) and protein (25–28%). About two thirds of
the world production is crushed for oil, and the remaining one third is consumed as food.
Turkey has produced about 0.4% of the world’s peanuts with an annual production of
about 80 thousands tons in 30 thousand ha areas, all of this production is consumed
domestically. Since the harvest and post-harvest technology of peanuts are not developed
sufficiently in Turkey, the production costs are quite high. This obstructs using peanuts in
the oil industry. Therefore, it is generally used in the food industry. Because of all these
factors, there has been an urgent need to design and develop machinery used in processing
peanuts industrially, which, in turn requires knowledge of their physical properties.
A rational approach to the design of peanut processing machinery, equipment and
facilities will involve a theoretical basis, laying down the mathematical and mechanical
foundations that will enable the coupling of the physical properties of the agricultural

Received 9 March 2005; accepted 28 July 2005.

Address correspondence to A. Ince, University of Cukurova, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of
Agricultural Machinery, Adana 01330, Turkey; E-mail: [email protected]

25
26 AKCALI, INCE, AND GUZEL

product with the characteristics of the machinery, equipment, facilities, and so forth. The
physical properties do not only constitute the basic engineering data required for machine
and equipment design, but they also aid the selection of suitable methods for obtaining
those data.[1]
The fundamental properties of peanuts under consideration will be their geometrical
shape and the related dimensions, specific mass and friction coefficients of hulled peanuts,
kernels and shells. Specific mass and friction coefficient depend primarily on the geometri-
cal shape and the relevant dimensions. It is necessary to know specific mass for a number of
good reasons. First of all, specific mass is an essential parameter for the storage, handling
and processing of the product. For instance, the methods of processing like sieving, cleaning,
and separating into several components may be based upon the differences of specific
masses. Data on specific mass are also required for the dimensioning of warehouses, feeding
units, as well as for determining capacities and mass flow rates in several processing units,
for estimating critical or terminal velocities, and for evaluating inertia of the product.
There are also very good reasons why the frictional properties must be known.
To name some examples: estimation of power requirements for the transportation of the
product; realization of the velocity and the sieving control; calculating the lateral pressure
in a silo wall will necessitate the data on frictional properties including friction coeffi-
cients; internal friction angle and angle of repose. Such data will not only affect the shapes
and dimensions of storage, flow characteristics in the handling, and methods of processing
units, but also overall costs.
There are many studies focusing on determining physical properties of plant mate-
rial.[2–7] Ogunjimi et al.[8] studied the physical properties of locust bean seeds. They
reported that the bulk density varied between 538.02 and 565.30 kg m−3. They also found
that the friction coefficient on wood was 0.43, and the angle of repose 20.32°. Baryeh and
Mangope[9] investigated the physical properties of QP–38 variety pigeon pea. They
observed that the bulk density was 0.7 g mm−3, the angle of repose was 17°, and the fric-
tion coefficient was 0.28 for plywood, 0.23 for galvanized steel, and 0.18 for aluminum at
5% moisture content (w.b). Sahoo and Srivastava[10] studied the physical properties of
Okra seed as a function of moisture content, they emphasized that the size and friction
coefficient increased as the moisture content increased. Vilche et al.[11] determined the
angle of repose and friction coefficient of Quinoa seed. They found that the angle of
repose and the friction coefficient varied from 18 to 25° and from 0.14 to 0.27 respec-
tively, on wood and galvanized iron surface in the moisture range from 4.6 to 25.8% dry
basis. Chowdhury et al.[12] determined some physical properties of grams at different
moisture contents ranging from 10.83% to 31.20% dry basis. Results indicated that the
length, width, and thickness increased linearly when the moisture content increased. Also,
the angle of repose increase from 27.03 to 33.27° with the increase of moisture content as
the bulk density decreased from 787.31 kg m−3 to 712.61 kg m−3. They emphasized that
the friction coefficient for grams increased with moisture content. The highest friction
coefficient was found over plywood and the lowest with a glass sheet.
A few researchers studied only the physical properties of peanut kernels. Agrawal
et al.[13] emphasized the shapes of the hulled peanuts, which have one or two kernels were
described as ellipsoid, double ellipsoid, and cassinoid. Olajide and Igbeka[14] determined
the size of peanuts by measuring their principal axial dimensions. The average major
intermediate and minor diameters of kernels were found to be 8.54, 3.55, and 6.93 mm,
respectively. It was also observed that the angle of repose was 17°. Kaleemullah[15] also
investigated the variations of these dimensions with moisture content.
 SELECTED PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF PEANUTS 27

So far, the researchers have focused only on peanut kernels in their studies.
However, the raw peanut has potentially a valuable hull, kernel, and shell which can be
subjected to industrial processing and economical evaluation. Thus, it is a necessity that as
much as possible data on the physical properties of peanuts as a whole product should be
provided for an effective utilization in the area of design and development. Nevertheless,
such data has been insufficient so far. The fundamental contribution of this article, there-
fore, is to fill in this gap. Specific objectives can be summarized as classifying the peanuts
dimensionally, defining a geometrical model, and determining the specific masses and
friction coefficients of hulled peanuts, kernels and shells.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The selection of the peanut material to be used in the experiments was based on
the guidelines of the Turkish Standards No:310[16]. According to this document, the
varieties grown in Turkey are standardized with respect to the geographical regions in
which they are produced. Test material was chosen from a random set of peanuts in such
a way that the experimental samples satisfied the criteria of being cream colored, big,
undamaged, and well-matured, excluding extra constraints pertinent to a specific
purpose. The average moisture content of a peanut was about 5% (d.b), as measured by
oven drying at a temperature of 105°C for 24 hours.

Dimensional Classification and Defining Geometrical Model

Measurements and observations have shown that from among the basic dimensions,
the width and thickness of the peanut exhibit only small differences. Therefore, width and
thickness are reduced to a single parameter, which will also provide convenience for the
theoretical approaches, thus making it possible to represent peanuts geometrically with
length and diameter parameters. Either of width or thickness, whichever is larger, is to be
defined as the diameter.
The basis on which dimensional classification is to be based is set up by calculating
the average dimension ( X ) and the associated standard deviation (σx). Then, small,
medium, and large size peanuts are so defined that their specific X dimension satisfies the
following inequalities:

Small size group X < X −σ x

Medium size group X −σ x < X < X +σ x
Large size group X > X +σ x

In this research, a geometrical model, which is sufficient to describe the peanut, was
formed. It is considered as being composed of a cylinder of finite length in the middle and
two hemispheres of the same cylinder radius in the ends (Fig. 1). One advantage of this
model is that it applies to both shell and kernel. The volume of this model, Vm was calcu-
lated by Eq. (1)

π d2 ⎡d L − d ⎤ (1)
Vm = ⎢3 + 2 ⎥
2 ⎣ ⎦
28 AKCALI, INCE, AND GUZEL

d
L

Figure 1 The hulled peanut geometry: L, length; R, radius; d, diameter.

where, L, d are the length and the diameter of the peanut, respectively. In order to facilitate
classifying, a correlation was established between length and diameter by this model. Eq. (1)
was utilized to test the appropriateness of the selected geometric model on a volumetric basis.

The Specific Mass and Model Appropriateness

The filling method was used in order to obtain the specific mass of peanuts and
to quantify model appropriateness. For this aim, a transparent cylindrical cup with a
measurement scale on it and wooden sawdust as a filling material were used. In the tests,
the volumes of the filling material and certain diameters and numbers of peanuts were
measured and recorded. By using these data, the length and volume of the peanuts were
figured out via size correlation. Then, the solid density, bulk density, and mass per item
were calculated. Here, the mass per item was calculated by dividing the relevant total
mass by the number of items in the tests. The volume of hulled peanuts is equal to the
difference between the volume of the filling material and the total volume. In this case,
the appropriateness of the model can be obtained by dividing the difference between
the calculated and experimental volumes by the calculated volume of the model on a
percentage basis by Eq. (2). The solid, rs and bulk, rb densities were computed by Eqs. (3)
and (4), respectively:

(Vm × N ) − Vs
App% = × 100 (2)
Vm × N

M
ρs = (3)
Vs

M
ρb = (4)
Vs + Vsd

where, App% is the percentage of the appropriateness; M is the total mass of peanuts in the
cup; N is the number of peanuts in the cup, and Vsd, Vs are the volumes of the sawdust and
solid peanuts in the cup, respectively. App% is a quantity signifying how fit the chosen
geometrical model is with respect to the real one as far as volumes are concerned. The cor-
relation between App% and rs, rb is clear in view of the fact that all depend on volumes.
 SELECTED PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF PEANUTS 29

Friction Coefficient
In the research, the friction coefficients of hulled peanuts, kernels, and shells were
found separately. To this end, three different methods were used: parallel wall method,
shear box method, and inclined surface method.[17,18]
Parallel wall method. In this method, a rectangular prism in dimensions of 30 ×
19 × 13 cm, with a movable wall, was used (Fig. 2). In order to eliminate wall friction, wall
surfaces were made from plexiglas. After filling the box with peanuts, the movable wall was
pulled carefully. So, the peanuts flowed along the horizontal line in the volume, and the
angle (φ) between static bulk main line and horizontal plane was measured. This angle,
referred to as angle of repose, was regarded as an index of the internal coefficient of friction.
Shear box method. In this method, classified peanuts were placed inside the
shear box which has 6 × 6 cm2 filling area. The box depth is 4.1 cm and shearing surface is
2.5 cm above the box floor (Fig. 3). Metal pieces that represented roughness perpendicular
to the shearing direction were inserted at the bottom and upper surfaces of the box.

Figure 2 The parallel wall experimental set: φ, angle of repose.

Figure 3 The shear box.

30 AKCALI, INCE, AND GUZEL

Comparators were used for measuring the quantities of shearing force and the horizontal
displacement. The constant sliding velocity (1–2 mm min−1) was achieved by the gears
mounted to the bottom surface of the box.
The internal friction angle of hulled peanut is found out by determining the slope of
the shearing stress vs. normal stress plot. Normal and shearing stresses were calculated by
Eqs. (5) and (6):

F1
σ= (5)
A1

F2
τ= (6)
A2

where σ is the normal stress; τ is the shearing stress; F1 is the normal force (0, 88, 177 N);
F2 is the shearing force; A1 is the surface area of the shear box before movement, and A2 is
the surface area of the shear box after movement. Shearing force used in Eq. (6) is that
shearing force that shows stability against changing horizontal displacement determined
by drawing graphs of shearing force versus horizontal displacement.
Inclined surface method. In this method, the friction coefficients between the
hulled peanuts, kernels, shells, and the materials that are used commonly in the peanut
post-harvest processing such as sheet iron, galvanized sheet iron, chrome sheet, iron grate,
wood, and wire screen were determined. Apart from these, the internal friction coefficient
of hulled peanuts were obtained. As seen in Fig. 4, a group of bound material was placed
on an inclined surface by which the inclination angle was increased gradually. At the
moment of the movement, the angle was read from the scale. The friction coefficient was
calculated by evaluating the tangent of the angle.[19]

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Dimensional Classification and Defining Geometrical Models
Based on the average and standard deviation of the samples in the sets, hulled pea-
nuts and kernels have been classified according to their diameter and length (Table 1). A
review of Table 1 reveals that the lower and upper limits of a certain peanut variety

Figure 4 Determination of friction coefficient by the inclined surface method: θ, inclination angle; μ, friction
coefficient.
 SELECTED PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF PEANUTS 31

Table 1 Size classification of hulled peanuts and kernels

Size, mm

Peanut variety Small Medium Large

Hulled peanut d < 13.2 13.2 ≤ d ≤ 17.7 d > 17.7

Anamur L < 24.9 24.9 ≤ L ≤ 38.7 L > 38.7
Kernel d < 7.5 7.5 ≤ d ≤ 11.1 d > 11.1
L < 16.0 16.0 ≤ L ≤ 21.0 L > 21.0
Hulled peanut d < 14.8 14.8 ≤ d ≤ 18.4 d > 18.4
Antalya L < 31.8 31.8 ≤ L ≤ 42.5 L > 42.5
Kernel d < 8.0 8.0 ≤ d ≤ 11.6 d > 11.6
L < 17.9 17.9 ≤ L ≤ 21.9 L > 21.9
Hulled peanut d < 13.8 13.8 ≤ d ≤ 18.1 d > 18.1
Osmaniye L < 25.6 25.6 ≤ L ≤ 39.1 L > 39.1
Kernel d < 7.5 7.5 ≤ d ≤ 11.2 d > 11.2
L < 15.1 15.1 ≤ L ≤ 21.7 L > 21.7
Hulled peanut d < 15.0 15.0 ≤ d ≤ 19.7 d > 19.7
Silifke L < 31.0 31.0 ≤ L ≤ 44.7 L > 44.7
Kernel d < 8.1 8.1 ≤ d ≤ 11.2 d > 11.2
L < 16.8 16.8 ≤ L ≤ 22.0 L > 22.0

increase roughly simultaneously. For instance, while medium size hulled peanut diameters
remain within 13.2 and 17.7 mm values, the corresponding values for the Silifke variety
get larger at the same time to 15.0 and 19.7 mm values. Similarly, the lengths of hulled
peanuts of the Anamur and Silifke varieties, exhibit the same kind of relationship as their
diameters, i.e., they change from 24.9–38.7 mm in Anamur to 31.0–44.7 mm in Silifke.
Similar observations can be made from Table 1 about the kernel diameters and lengths.
One conclusion is that a correlation between the diameter and length can be expected
both for the hulled peanut and kernel. This brings in the question of correlation between
fundamental dimensions. Finally, linear correlations between the diameter and the length
of those have been established in each type, with their corresponding coefficients of
correlation.
Table 2 demonstrates that although clearly there is a dependence of length on
diameter, this dependence is linear only to the extent displayed by the magnitude of the
coefficient of correlation. However, even with such values of coefficients of correlation, a
characterization of peanut geometry is possible by only one parameter, namely diameter.

Table 2 Length-diameter correlations for hulled peanuts and kernels

Length (L) and diameter (d) Coefficient of

Peanut variety correlation correlation (R2)

Anamur Hulled peanut, mm L = 17.554d + 4.699 0.32

Kernel, mm L = 0.8732d + 9.8704 0.26
Antalya Hulled peanut, mm L = 14.905d + 12.477 0.25
Kernel, mm L = 0.7673d + 11.5620 0.23
Osmaniye Hulled peanut, mm L = 13.892d + 3.022 0.33
Kernel, mm L = 0.8937d + 9.4071 0.28
Silifke Hulled peanut, mm L = 16.480d + 9.098 0.33
Kernel, mm L = 9.1505d + 7.6113 0.40
32 AKCALI, INCE, AND GUZEL

Table 3 Extent of deviation of peanut shapes from the model

Error (%)

Peanut variety Small Medium Large Mixed

Anamur 51 33 10 23
Antalya 58 33 9 27
Osmaniye 66 31 13 23
Silifke 64 39 29 44

The advantages working with one parameter will override the errors resulting from an
assumption of such a limited correlation. It will greatly simplify the theoretical work
based on an elaborate model.
Finally, the relative magnitudes of error, defined as (100-App%), resulting from
approximating the peanut shape by a regular geometric model are presented in Table 3. As
can be seen from the table, the quantitative suitability of the model ranges from 56% for
the Silifke type, through 73% for the Antalya type to 77% for the Anamur and Osmaniye
types. Moreover, appropriateness of the model increases as the size of the peanut gets
larger. In this sense, the model volumes of the large size of Anamur and Antalya varieties
indicate as little as 10% and 9% deviations, respectively from the volumes of the actual
peanut shape.

The Specific Mass

The specific mass which is one of the effective parameters quantifying the ability of
a material to move was investigated under the concepts of solid and bulk densities. As has
already been implied by Eqs. (3) and (4), explicitly solid density was defined as the ratio
between actual peanut mass and volume, and bulk density was described as the ratio
between the total mass of a given group and the total volume occupied by this group. The
specific mass results are presented in Tables 4 and 5. A review of figures in Tables 4 and 5
shows that as the size of hulled peanut gets larger, the solid density decreases. On the
other hand, the bulk density under the same conditions, remains within small variations.
Moreover, the bulk density of a hulled peanut is approximately half of the solid density
whereas a peanut kernel has, on the average, a bulk density two thirds of its solid density.

Table 4 The solid and bulk densities of hulled peanuts

Average specific mass (g cm−3)

Peanut variety Small-size Medium-size Large-size

Anamur Solid 0.54 0.51 0.42

Bulk 0.27 0.28 0.23
Antalya Solid 0.50 0.48 0.37
Bulk 0.23 0.27 0.21
Osmaniye Solid 0.58 0.49 0.44
Bulk 0.22 0.26 0.25
Silifke Solid 0.52 0.49 0.47
Bulk 0.26 0.27 0.23
 SELECTED PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF PEANUTS 33

Table 5 The solid and bulk densities of peanut kernels and shells

Average specific mass (g cm−3)

Peanut variety Solid Bulk

Anamur Kernel 0.89 0.59

Shell 0.30 0.068
Antalya Kernel 0.88 0.58
Shell 0.29 0.071
Osmaniye Kernel 0.93 0.57
Shell 0.27 0.066
Silifke Kernel 0.92 0.54
Shell 0.29 0.077

Table 6 The average mass per item

Hulled peanut mass (g per item)

Peanut variety Small Medium Large Mixed

Anamur 0.85 1.71 2.80 1.84

Antalya 1.07 2.23 2.89 2.21
Osmaniye 0.70 1.83 3.01 1.97
Silifke 0.98 2.28 3.62 2.09

A considerable difference between the solid and bulk densities of a shell is a good indica-
tion for compressibility.
Another index of mass property is the average mass per item defined as the total
mass of a given set of hulled peanuts divided by the number of hulled peanuts in that set.
The results of measurements have been collected in Table 6. As is to be expected, the
mass per item values become larger with increasing sizes. In a mixed set of varieties, the
average mass per item turns out to be approximately 2 g obtained by totaling the last col-
umn of Table 6 and dividing by 4.
The significance of these figures in Table 6 is that they are needed in the calculation
of critical velocity, which is a quantity determining the transportability of peanut by pneu-
matic means.

Friction Coefficient
The average angles of repose obtained by the parallel wall method are displayed in
Table 7. As the size of hulled peanut increases, the angle of repose decreases somewhat
for all varieties. These values together with other mass properties play important roles
about defining the flow characteristics of bulk solids like peanut.[20]
The internal friction angles for all varieties have been found in between 29°–29.7°
in the method of shear box. Therefore, here, shearing force vs. displacement and shearing
vs. normal stress curves are given only for Osmaniye variety (Fig. 5 and 6). Fig. 6 shows
that although no load is applied along the normal direction to the peanut, the shear load on
the peanut set appears to be non-zero. This seemingly unexpected result reveals that there
34 AKCALI, INCE, AND GUZEL

Table 7 The average angles of repose of hulled peanut

Average angle of repose (°)

Peanut variety Small-size Medium-size Large-size

Anamur 31.0 28.0 26.5

Antalya 29.2 26.6 25.3
Osmaniye 30.0 29.0 26.0
Silifke 32.0 28.0 26.0

500

400
Shear force (Nx0.53)

300

200

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm)

Figure 5 The force vs. displacement curve for Osmaniye variety: •, 0 N; 䡲, 88 N; ▲, 177 N.

0,12
Shearing stress (N/mm )

0,1
2

0,08

0,06

0,04 α =29.7°

0,02

0
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12
2
Normal stress (N/mm )

Figure 6 The shearing vs. normal stress curve for Osmaniye variety.

are adhesive effects of peanut. Values of the internal friction angle are important for they
affect the physical constant, lateral-to-vertical pressure ratio, as well as grain bin wall
pressures.[21]
 SELECTED PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF PEANUTS 35

Table 8 The friction coefficients between hulled peanuts, kernels, shells, and different materials

Friction coefficients

Iron grate

Iron Glvzd. Chrome Wire

Peanut variety sheet sheet sheet Parallel Perpendicular Wood screen Internal

Hulled peanut 0.33 0.33 0.31 0.54 0.76 0.50 0.70 0.76
Anamur Kernel 0.28 0.24 0.27 0.51 0.74 0.29 0.53 0.72
Shell 0.35 0.38 0.35 0.51 0.72 0.40 0.76 0.76
Hulled peanut 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.51 0.77 0.52 0.65 0.70
Antalya Kernel 0.32 0.25 0.34 0.51 0.77 0.33 0.51 0.72
Shell 0.36 0.38 0.33 0.53 0.74 0.41 0.71 0.78
Hulled peanut 0.35 0.32 0.31 0.51 0.77 0.52 0.65 0.70
Osmaniye Kernel 0.30 0.23 0.27 0.51 0.74 0.31 0.51 0.72
Shell 0.37 0.37 0.35 0.53 0.72 0.42 0.76 0.79
Hulled peanut 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.54 0.73 0.48 0.69 0.76
Silifke Kernel 0.30 0.25 0.34 0.53 0.77 0.31 0.53 0.74
Shell 0.36 0.37 0.32 0.57 0.74 0.40 0.72 0.74

The results of the friction coefficients, which will directly and indirectly affect the
design of the processing machine, have been tabulated in Table 8 according to the differ-
ent contacting materials. It is observed from Table 6 that while the peanut has a strong
interaction with the kind of the contacting material, on a percentage basis, the internal
coefficient of friction showed a relatively small difference from variety to variety. On the
other hand, the values associated with average angle of repose and internal friction angle
are quite close to each other on the basis of medium-size peanuts. Within this context,
there is a considerable difference between the values of friction coefficient associated with
sheet metal and wire screen or iron grate. In all contacting materials, due to the surface
roughness of shells, hulled peanuts, and kernels, the relevant friction coefficients are
higher in the case of shells followed by hulled peanuts and kernels. The biggest friction
coefficient has been observed in the iron grate perpendicular to the flow for all peanut
modes. From the results in Table 8, it appears that friction coefficient for perpendicular flow
to grate is very similar to that between peanuts with the inclined surface method. This similar-
ity casts light to explain the differences of internal friction angle discovered by two different
methods (i.e., shear box and inclined surface method), whereby the selected peanuts are regu-
larly placed in the available box cavity in the shear box method, while the peanuts move on a
wavy medium of peanuts tied to each other by tape in the inclined surface method (Fig. 4).
The comparable values given for the friction coefficient between this study and
those reported in Olajide and Igbeka[14] exhibit a difference mainly because the peanut
material used in the measurements have significantly different geometric properties.

CONCLUSIONS
The major findings of the research conducted on peanut material defined in Turkish
Standards No: 310[16] can be summarized as follows:

a) The appropriateness of the selected geometric model (a cylinder and two hemispheres)
has been found between 34% and 91%.
36 AKCALI, INCE, AND GUZEL

b) The solid and bulk densities for hulled peanuts have been determined in the range of
0.37–0.58 g cm−3 and 0.21–0.28 g cm−3, respectively. Also, the average bulk and solid
densities variations have been observed in the intervals 0.54–0.59 g cm−3 for kernel,
0.066–0.077 g cm−3 for shell, and 0.88–0.93 g cm−3 for kernel, 0.27–0.30 g cm−3 for
shell, respectively.
c) The average mass per item for single hulled peanuts has been found to vary from 0.70 g
to 3.62 g.
d) The parallel wall method has produced an interval of variation of 25.3°–32° for the
angle of repose, and the shear box method has led to a variation of 29°–29.7° for the
average internal friction coefficient.
e) The maximum and minimum values for the friction coefficients of the hulled peanut
have been determined between 0.31–0.77, those of the kernel between 0.23–0.77, those
of the shell between 0.32–0.76 on different materials.

NOMENCLATURE
L Length (mm)
d Diameter (mm)
Vm Volume of the model (mm3)
Vsd Volume of the sawdust (mm3)
N Number of peanuts
M Mass (g)
ρs Solid density (g cm−3)
ρb Bulk density (g cm−3)
σ Normal stress (N mm−2)
τ Shearing stress (N mm−2)
F1 Normal force (N)
F2 Shearing force (N)
A1 Surface area of the shear box before movement (mm2)
A2 Surface area of the shear box after movement (mm2)
X average dimension
σx standard deviation

REFERENCES
1. Singh, G.; Thongsawatwong, P. Evaluation and modification of two peanut shellers. Agricultural
Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America 1983, 14 (3), 33–40.
2. Fraser, B.M.; Verma, S.S.; Muir, W.E. Some physical properties of fababeans. Journal of
Agricultural Engineering Research 1978, 23, 53–57.
3. Gupta, R.K.; Das, S.K. Physical properties of sunflower seeds. Journal of Agricultural Engineer-
ing Research 1997, 66 (1), 1–8.
4. Deshpande, S.D.; Bal, S.; Ojha, T.P. Physical properties of soya bean. Journal of Agricultural
Engineering Research 1993, 56 (1), 89–98.
5. Carman, K. Some physical properties of lentil seeds. Journal of Agricultural Engineering
Research 1996, 63, 87–92.
6. Suthar, S.H.; Das, S.K. Some physical properties of karingda seeds. Journal of Agricultural Engi-
neering Research 1996, 65, 15–22.
7. Jain, R.K.; Bal, S. Properties of millet. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 1997, 66, 85–91.
8. Ogunjimi, L.A.O.; Aviara, N.A; Aregbesola, O.A. Some engineering properties of locust bean
seed. Journal of Food Engineering 2002, 55, 95–99.
 SELECTED PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF PEANUTS 37

9. Baryeh, E.A.; Mangope, B.K. Some physical properties of QP-38 variety pigeon pea. Journal of
Food Engineering 2002, 56, 59–65.
10. Sahoo, P.K.; Srivastava, A.P. Physical properties of okra seed. Biosystems Engineering 2002,
83 (4), 441–448.
11. Vilche, C.; Gely, M.; Santalla, E. Physical properties of quinoa seeds. Biosystems Engineering
2003, 86 (1), 59–65.
12. Chowdhury, M.M.I.; Sarker, R.I.; Bala, B.K.; Hossain, M.A. Physical properties of gram as a
function of moisture content. International Journal of Food Properties 2001, 4 (2), 297–310.
13. Agrawal, K.K.; Clary, B.L.; Schroeder, E.W. Mathematical models of peanut pod geometry.
Transactions of the ASAE 1973, 16 (2), 315–319.
14. Olajide, J.O.; Igbeka, J.C. Some physical properties of groundnut kernels. Journal of Food Engi-
neering 2003, 58, 201–204.
15. Kaleemullah, S. The effect of moisture content on the physical properties of groundnut kernels.
Tropical Science 1992, 32, 129–136.
16. Turkish Institute of Standards (TIS). Peanut. No:310, Ankara, Turkey, 1972.
17. Moysey, E. B.; Hiltz, S. Friction properties of fertilizers. Canadian Agricultural Engineering
1985, 27 (2), 79–83.
18. Mohsenin, N. N. Physical properties of plant and animal materials. Gordon and Breach Science
Publishers: New York, 1978.
19. Guzel, E.; Akcali, I.D.; Mutlu, H.; Ince, A. Research on fatigue behavior for peanut shelling.
Journal of Food Engineering 2005, 67 (3), 373–378.
20. Carson, J.W.; Royal, T.A.; Dick, D.S. The handling of heaps. Mechanical Engineering
November 1986, 52–59.
21. Singh, D.; Moysey, E.B. Grain bin wall pressures: theoretical and experimental. Canadian
Agricultural Engineering 1985, 27 (1), 43–48.