Table 3.
Comparison of the previously different SBCM.
| S. no | Res | Year | Machine type | Knife type | Design simplicity | Manufacturing Cost | Skills require for machine operating | Performance tests | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Machine productivity | Skipping rate | Invisible losses | Damage index | ||||||||
| 1 | 32 | 2020 | Based on machine vision | Rotary | Low | High | High | 40 | N.D.* | N.D | N.D |
| 2 | 23 | 2020 | Semiautomatic | Reciprocating | Medium | Medium | Low | 18 | N.D | N.D | N.D |
| 3 | 24 | 2021 | Semiautomatic | Reciprocating | Medium | Medium | Low | 36 | 4.09–11% | N.D | N.D |
| 4 | 4 | 2021 | Semiautomatic | Reciprocating | Medium | Medium | Low | 116 | N.D | N.D | N.D |
| 5 | 34 | 2022 | Based on machine vision | Rotary | Low | Medium | Low | 85 | N.D | N.D | N.D |
| 6 | 7 | 2023 | Semiautomatic | Reciprocating | Medium | High | High | 30 | N.D | N.D | N.D |
| SSBC in this paper | Semiautomatic | Pivot | High | Medium | Low | 110 | 0–13% | D** | D** | ||
*Not detective, **Detected.