656 REM Chaff Spreader (1991)

Printed: July, 1991
Tested at: Humboldt
ISSN 0383-3445
Group 4c
Evaluation Report
656
REM Chaff Spreader
A Co-operative Program Between
ALBERTA
FARM
MACHINERY
RESEARCH
CENTRE
PAMI
PRAIRIE AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY INSTITUTE
REM CHAFF SPREADER
MANUFACTURER AND DISTRIBUTOR:
REM Manufacturing Limited
P.O. Box 1207
Swift Current, Saskatchewan
S9H 3X4
Phone: (306) 773-0644
RETAIL PRICE:
$2950.00 (June, 1991, f.o.b. Humboldt, Saskatchewan with
optional drive kit).
Manufacturer’s Additional Comments
Combines that have chopper drives do not require the optional
drive kit, which reduces the cost to $2650.00.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The REM chaff spreader mounts at the rear of a combine to
spread chaff from the cleaning shoe (see APPENDIX I for applicable
combines). It is used in conjunction with the standard spreaders or
chopper, which spread the straw.
A sheet metal tray attaches to the rear axle of the combine
(FIGURE 1). The chaff falls onto the tray and is propelled out each
side by high velocity air from ports located in the center of the
tray. The airflow is supplied by a centrifugal fan that is belt driven
and mounted on the side of the combine. The air is ducted to the
spreader through a 6 in (152 mm) diameter flexible duct.
Specifications for the REM spreader are given in APPENDIX I.
SCOPE OF TEST
FIGURE 1. REM Chaff Spreader.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Quality of Work: The flow of material through the spreader
was very good. The REM spreader was designed to be used in
conjunction with the combine straw spreaders but could be used
without them if the straw was dry and well broken. Chaff spreading
was good. Spread widths were usually up to 40 ft (12.2 m). The
chaff was spread with acceptable uniformity without dense rows.
Rate of Work: The REM easily handled all of the chaff from
the Case IH 1680 combine in all crops.
Ease of Operation and Adjustment: Ease of installation
was good. However, no installation instructions were available
at the time of the test. Spreader adjustment was very good.
The adjustable plate across the rear of the spreader reduced
the amount of chaff spread to the rear and seldom needed
adjustment. The slide-in mounting and hose quick coupler made
removal simple.
Ease of adjusting the combine was good. Access was
not hindered. Samples of either shoe or rotor loss were easily
collected. Ease of servicing was excellent. Only belt tension
required checking or adjustment. Ease of cleaning was
excellent.
Power Requirement: The power required to drive the REM
spreader was 9.2 hp (6.8 kW).
Safety: No safety decals were provided and no safety
information was provided in an operator’s manual. The drive was
located behind the combine shields and no moving parts were
exposed.
Operator’s Manual: No operator’s manual was supplied.
Mechanical History: No mechanical problems occurred
during the test.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the manufacturer consider:
1. Supplying an operator’s manual with appropriate installation,
operation, maintenance and safety instructions.
Senior Engineer: J.D. Wassermann
Project Manager: L.G. Hill
Project Technologist: A.R. Boyden
THE MANUFACTURER STATES THAT
With regard to recommendation number:
1. We are in the process of writing an operator’s manual.
Page
2
The machine evaluated by PAMI was configured as described
in the General Description, FIGURE 1, and Specifications section of
this report. The manufacturer may have produced different versions
of this machine either before or after the PAMI tests. Therefore, when
using this report, check to ensure the machine being considered
is the same as the one evaluated in this report. If differences are
found, PAMI or the manufacturer may be contacted to determine the
effect of the changes on performance.
The REM spreader was mounted on a Case IH 1680 combine.
It was operated in the conditions shown in TABLE 1 for about
43 hours. During this time, measurements and observations were
made in various crops to evaluate the spreader for rate of work,
quality of work, ease of operation, adjustment, power requirement,
operator safety, and suitability of the operator’s manual.
Laboratory tests were also conducted to determine the
uniformity of the spread pattern. The REM spreader was used on a
stationary Case IH 1680 combine that was fed a typical rate of dry
crop material by a conveyor. The straw and chaff was spread over
an unobstructed concrete floor. The straw and chaff that fell within
2 ft (0.61 m) wide strips across the width of the spread pattern were
weighed to determine spread uniformity.
TABLE 1. Operating Conditions
Crop
Yield Range
Width of cut
bu/ac
t/ha
ft
m
Barley
59 - 100
3.2 - 5.5
25
7.5
Canola
21 - 36
1.2 - 2.0
18.5, 20
Hours
Field Area
ac
ha
3
21
8.5
5.6, 6.0
11
90
36.4
Flax
22 - 27
1.4- 1.7
29
8.7
6
59
23.9
Oats
94 - 111
3.4 - 4.0
14
6.7
6
24
9.7
Wheat
26 - 56
1.8 - 3.8
19, 30
5.7, 9.0
17
184
74.5
43
378
153
Total
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
QUALITY OF WORK
Chaff Handling: Chaff handling was very good.
Dry chaff flowed easily down the sloped chaff pan to the
spreader tray. In tough conditions some chaff was caught at the
corners of the sloped pan, however, this did not cause a problem.
The high velocity air from the ports propelled all of the chaff
from the tray. Although the REM spreader was designed to be
used in conjunction with the standard spreaders, it was also tested
without the spreaders. As long as the straw was dry and well broken,
it spread very effectively. However, even a small amount of long,
tough straw would bridge the tray and quickly caused plugging.
An adjustable plate across the rear of the spreader controlled
the amount of chaff spread to the rear. The high airflow from the
Case IH combine’s rotor and shoe made it necessary to adjust this
plate to its highest position to minimize the chaff spread to the rear.
Spreading: Chaff spreading by the REM was good.
Chaff and straw spreading is a key part of good soil
management. Heavy concentration or rows of chaff and/or straw
can cause difficulty in subsequent tillage and seeding operation.
Heavy concentrations may also cause slow soil warming, nitrogen
depletion or toxic build up.
Ideally, all crop residue should be redistributed evenly over the
field. This seldom happens. To get the most effective spread, it is
necessary to match cutting and spreading width closely. It is also
important that the spreader provide suitable spread uniformity over
the spread pattern.
FIGURE 2 shows the chaff spread pattern of the REM along
with the straw spread pattern from the host combine. FIGURE 2 also
shows the material concentration across the spread that would be
typical for a 50 bu/ac (3.4 t/ha) wheat crop (MOG/G = 1)*, when the
spread and cut widths are closely matched. APPENDIX II provides a
guideline for crop residue concentration ratings.
FIGURE 2. Spread Pattern Uniformity.
The REM’s spread in FIGURE 2 shows that chaff could
be spread up to 40 ft (12.2 m). Chaff concentrations were in the
acceptable range when width of cut was similar to spread width.
Higher yields or wider widths of cut would increase the concentration
while lower yields would reduce the concentration.
In the field, chaff was also typically spread up to 40 ft (12.2 m)
(FIGURE 3). Tougher straw and barley crops tended to reduce the
spread to about 30 ft (9.1 m). Most of the chaff was spread to the
sides and no rows or heavy concentrations were apparent.
The low discharge height minimized the effects of wind.
hoists to lift them into place for mounting.
The REM spreader tested was a pre-production unit and
installation instructions were not yet available. It is recommended
that the manufacturer consider providing an operator’s manual with
appropriate installation instructions.
Spreader Adjustment: Ease of adjustment was very good.
The adjustable plate across the rear of the spreader was easily
adjusted up or down using common wrenches. Adjusting the plate to
its highest position reduced the amount of chaff spread to the rear.
Once positioned, it seldom had to be readjusted.
No adjustment was required when dropping straw in a
windrow.
Removal was simple, taking 2 people about 15 minutes.
Combine Adjustment: Ease of combine adjustment was
good.
Although access to the cleaning shoe was restricted by the
combine’s standard straw spreaders, the REM spreader did not
provide any additional restriction.
Access to the shoe discharge for checking grain loss was
convenient. Samples of shoe loss could be collected above the
spreader tray or from the spreader discharge. However, extreme
care was required as the person was very near the combine’s rear
wheels and straw spreader.
Servicing: Ease of servicing was excellent.
No lubrication was required. The belts for the drive to the
fan should be inspected occasionally and tension adjusted when
necessary.
Cleaning: Ease of cleaning was excellent.
nly small amounts of chaff were caught on the corners of the
chaff pan and were easily removed.
POWER REQUIREMENTS
The power required to drive the REM spreader was 9.2 hp
(6.8 kW).
The power requirement did not vary significantly with changes
in chaff load. Maximum fan impeller speed was 5000 RPM.
SAFETY
All combine choppers and spreaders are potentially dangerous.
Material discharged can reach velocities that can cause serious
injury or death. Extreme caution is required at all times when working
near operating spreaders.
The REM did not have any warning decals at the time of
test. However, the fan drive was mounted under existing shields.
Unlike many spreaders, the REM had no moving parts at the chaff
discharge tray.
The manual supplied did not provide information on operation,
maintenance, or safety.
OPERATOR’S MANUAL
At the time of test, a specific manual was not available for the
combine used. A recommendation has already been made.
MECHANICAL HISTORY
The intent of the test was to evaluate functional performance.
Extended durability testing was not conducted. No mechanical
problems occurred during the 43 hours of field operation.
FIGURE 3. Typical Spread Pattern.
RATE OF WORK
The REM easily handled high feedrates from the Case IH
1680, providing the combine’s standard straw spreaders were used.
Combine MOG feedrates at times were in excess of 1000 lb/min
(27.2 t/h). Typically, 20 to 30% of the MOG was chaff going over the
cleaning shoe. The REM spreader easily spread the chaff and any
straw that fell past the standard spreaders. Plugging did not occur
when the standard spreaders were used.
EASE OF OPERATION AND ADJUSTMENT
Installation: Ease of installation was good. It took 2 people
about 6 hours to install the spreader tray, a fan, and a duct. The
components could be moved by hand and did not require jacks or
*MOG/G refers to the weight of Material-Other-than-Grain divided by weight of grain. A
value of 1 means that MOG and grain are equal.
Page
3
APPENDIX I
SPECIFICATIONS
MAKE:
MODEL:
MANUFACTURER:
APPENDIX II
CROP RESIDUE CONCENTRATION RATINGS
REM Chaff Spreader
for Case IH combines
REM Manufacturing Limited
Box 1207
Swift Current, Saskatchewan
S9H 3X4
DIMENSIONS: (Spreader Body Only)
-- width
-- length
-- height
74 in (1880 mm)
26 in (660 mm)
16 in (406 mm)
WEIGHT: (Total)
189 lb (85.7 kg)
SPREADING SYSTEM:
-- type
-- fan
-- housing diameter
-- inlet diameter
-- outlet diameter
-- drive type
-- hose
-- port outlet area
pneumatic, side mounted centrifugal
fan, ducted to a plenum.
REM model 33 H.E.
20 in (510 mm)
8.25 in (210 mm)
5.4 in (137 mm)
belt driven from combine
aluminum flexible hose 6 in (152 mm)
diameter flexible polyethelene hose 6 in
(152 mm) diameter
12.7 in² (82 cm²)
SERVICING:
no servicing required
COMBINES AVAILABLE FOR:
Case IH 1 680
John Deere 7720, 7721,8820, 9400,
9500, 9600
Conclusive scientific research could not be located to rate the impact of different
concentrations of crop residue. However, field experience has provided basic
information in this area. The following explains the development of ratings used by
PAMI in this report.
In Western Canada, a typically high wheat yield is about 50 bu/ac (3.4 t/ha). These
crops usually have at least an equal amount of Material-Other-than-Grain(MOG). In
such crops, when very dry, some combines can put up to 35% of the MOG over the
cleaning shoe (i.e. chaff). Conversely, if conditions are tougher, the amount of chaff
goes down, and up to 85% of the MOG from the combine is straw.
When chaff is dropped directly behind the combine, the accumulation is very
noticeable. However, chaff spread over 40% of the width of cut appears acceptable,
while spreading over 50% of the width of cut is desirable. Straw typically appears
acceptable when spread over 70% of the width of cut, while spreading over 80% of the
width of cut is desirable. The following table shows approximate concentrations of chaff,
straw or a combination, which could occur at various levels in the 50 bu/ac (3.4 t/ha)
crop described.
These concentrations can be used as a guide for maximum concentrations in
other yields also.
CONCENTRATION lb/yd² (gm/m²)
Rating
Chaff
Straw
Total MOG
Desirable
below 0.44 (238)
below 0.66 (358)
below 1.10 (596)
Acceptable
below 0.55 (298)
below 0.76 (412)
below 1.31 (710)
Unacceptable
over 0.55 (298)
over 0.76 (412)
below 1.31 (710)
Theoretical
0.22 (119)
0.53 (297)
0.62 (336)
SUMMARY CHART
REM CHAFF SPREADER
RETAIL PRICE
$2950.00 (June 1991, f.o.b. Humboldt, Saskatchewan)
QUALITY OF WORK
Chaff Handling
Spreading
Very Good; when used with the combine’s straw spreaders
Good; 40 ft (12.2 m), acceptable uniformity without dense rows
RATE OF WORK
Handled all chaff from combine at total MOG feedrates that reached 1000 lb/min (27.2 t/h)
EASE OF OPERATION
Installation
Spreader Adjustment
Combine Adjustment
Servicing
Cleaning
Good; lifted by hand, but no installation instructions provided
Very Good; minimal adjustment needed
Good; did not increase restriction to cleaning shoe
Excellent; only belt tension required checking or adjustment
Excellent; all straw and chaff easily removed
POWER REQUIREMENTS 9.2 hp (6.8 kW)
SAFETY
No safety decals; no safety information in operator’s manual
OPERATOR’S MANUAL
Not supplied
MECHANICAL HISTORY
No mechanical problems occurred
Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute
Head Office: P.O. Box 1900, Humboldt, Saskatchewan, Canada S0K 2A0
Telephone: (306) 682-2555
3000 College Drive South
Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1K 1L6
Telephone: (403) 329-1212
FAX: (403) 329-5562
http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/navigation/engineering/
afmrc/index.html
Test Stations:
P.O. Box 1060
Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, Canada R1N 3C5
Telephone: (204) 239-5445
Fax: (204) 239-7124
P.O. Box 1150
Humboldt, Saskatchewan, Canada S0K 2A0
Telephone: (306) 682-5033
Fax: (306) 682-5080
This report is published under the authority of the minister of Agriculture for the Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the prior
approval of the Alberta Farm Machinery Research Centre or The Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute.