b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 0 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 3 0 8 e3 2 5

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/issn/15375110

Research Paper

Discrete element method modelling of a centrifugal fertiliser

spreader

C.J. Coetzee*, S.G. Lombard

Department of Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa

article info
Experimental testing and calibration of new machines and fertiliser can be costly and time
Article history: consuming. Standard centrifugal fertiliser spreaders are designed to achieve a uniform
Received 11 January 2011 distribution across the entire field. Fruit trees, however, are planted in rows and it would be
Received in revised form advantageous to concentrate the fertiliser closer to the tree trunk and hence the root
19 April 2011 system. This could reduce the amount of fertiliser needed and will also reduce the negative
Accepted 21 April 2011 environmental impact. A discrete element method (DEM) model of a centrifugal fertiliser
Published online 8 June 2011 spreader was developed. A sensitivity study was used to determine the DEM parameters by
comparing the results to experimental results. The effects of the disc speed, feed position,
feed rate and vane angle on the spread pattern were investigated experimentally and
compared to the DEM results. A deflector plate was designed to separate the flow into two
paths along the tree lines. The DEM results of the deflector were compared to the experi-
mental results. It was shown that the DEM model can be used to make both qualitative and
quantitative predictions of the spread pattern under different spreader settings. The model
could also accurately predict the effect of the deflector on the spread pattern. This indi-
cates that DEM can be a powerful tool in the development of new spreader concepts.
ª 2011 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction work at large working widths of up to 48 m (Van Liedekerke

Centrifugal fertiliser spreaders are used by farmers worldwide.
In Europe, centrifugal spreaders are used to distribute over
90% of all fertiliser (Van Liedekerke, Tijskens, Dintwa, Rioual, &
Vangeyte, 2009). A typical centrifugal spreader contains
a hopper (0.5 m3 e 8 m3) feeding two spinning discs. The discs are
usually counter-rotating to improve the symmetry of the spread
pattern and mechanically or hydraulically driven from the
tractor. They are mounted directly under the hopper and usually
have a set of two or four vanes. The fertiliser particles flow
through the hopper metering device (usually an orifice) onto the
rotating discs where they are accelerated outwards by the vanes.
Centrifugal fertiliser spreaders have the advantage of
relatively low cost, simple maintenance and the ability to
et al., 2008). A disadvantage of this design is the sensitivity
of the spread pattern to variations in flow rate, fertiliser
characteristics such as friction coefficient, size and shape,
wind disturbances, field inclinations and machine vibration
(Moshou, Deprez, & Ramon, 2004).
It has been shown that over- and under-application of
fertiliser in the field can result in both qualitative and quan-
titative yield losses (Sogaard & Kierkegaard, 1994). Excessive
application also results in additional costs and pollution of
surface and ground waters (Parris & Reille, 1999).
Since 1950, the worldwide fertiliser consumption has
increased from 14 to 143 million tonnes per annum and it is
estimated that it will reach 199 million tonnes by 2030, (Van
Liedekerke, 2007). Over the past 20 years there has been

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ27 (0) 21 808 4239.

E-mail address: ccoetzee@sun.ac.za (C.J. Coetzee).
1537-5110/$ e see front matter ª 2011 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2011.04.011
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 0 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 3 0 8 e3 2 5 309

Nomenclature b angular width of stationary pattern [ ]

c radial width of stationary pattern [m]
Cd drag coefficient
mp particleeparticle friction coefficient
d particle diameter [m]
mw particle-wall friction coefficient
fij mass fraction in collector ij
q vane angle [ ]
g gravitational acceleration [m s2]
ra air density [kg m3]
kn particle normal stiffness [N m1]
rp particle density [kg m3]
ks particle shear stiffness [N m1]
x contact damping ratio
Mij mass of fertiliser in collector ij [kg]
Mtotal total mass of fertiliser distributed [kg] Abbreviations
rij collector radius in stationary pattern [m] CAN calcium ammonium nitrate
r average radius of stationary pattern [m] COR coefficient of restitution
aij collector angle in stationary pattern [ ] DEM discrete element method/model
a average angle of stationary pattern [ ] RD deviation function

African chemical industry (Van der Linde & Pitse, 2006).

Fig. 1 e The idealised spreading pattern for orchards.
growing concerns about the environmental impact of fertil-
isers applied to the soil. This concerns water and air pollution,
and the decline in biodiversity (Van Liedekerke, Tijskens,
Dintwa, Anthonis, & Ramon, 2006).
The South African fertiliser industry supplies about
2 million tonnes of fertiliser products annually to the local
market at a value of around US$ 480 million. Excluding oil, this
represents approximately 20% of the turnover of the South
Citrus, deciduous fruit and vines represent roughly 11% of
this market. Standard centrifugal fertiliser spreaders are
designed to achieve, after overlapping of the spread pattern,
a uniform distribution across an entire field (Jones, Hayden, &
Yule, 2008). This is the ideal situation for field crops such as
maize, wheat and sugar cane. Fruit trees in South Africa,
however, are planted in rows 4 me5 m apart and it would be
advantageous to concentrate the fertiliser applied closer to
the tree trunk and hence the root system. This should reduce
the amount of fertiliser needed and negative environmental
impacts. Here the focus is on apple orchards. The distribution
of apple roots is well documented (Atkinson, 1976 and
De Silva, Hall, Tustin, & Gandar, 1999). Sokalska, Haman,
Szewczuk, Sobota, and Deren (2009) particularly the
measured the root distribution of apple trees grown under
drip irrigation. Drip irrigation is localised and research has
shown that the majority of the roots could be found within
a 1 m radial distance from the tree trunk.

Fig. 2 e Experimental setup showing the hopper, disk and collector trays.
310 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 0 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 3 0 8 e3 2 5

Fig. 3 e (a) Vane dimensions, (b) definition of the vane angle and (c) the definition of the feed position.

Spread patterns can be measured by placing a row of col-
lecting trays in the field. They are usually placed perpendic-
ular to the driving direction. As the tractor passes over the
trays they collect the fertiliser and a measurement of the
transverse distribution is obtained. This is the most realistic
method to measure the spread patterns but it has several
drawbacks (Van Liedekerke et al., 2008). Conditions such as
wind and humidity and other field conditions cannot be
controlled which make it difficult to carry out comparative
studies. Standardised tests can be conducted in spreading
halls (Reumers, Tijskens, & Ramon, 2003b). Collecting trays
are usually used in these halls, but the external effects are
eliminated and the measurements are more repeatable. Some
halls are also air-conditioned to maintain the atmospheric
conditions (Van Liedekerke et al., 2008). Spreading halls,
however, also suffer from a few drawbacks (Reumers,
Tijskens, & Ramon, 2003a): the tests are time consuming,
halls are large and expensive to build and operate, and large

Fig. 4 e Experimental setup showing the deflector.

 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 0 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 3 0 8 e3 2 5 311

Fig. 5 e Definition of spread patterns and distributions.

amounts of fertiliser are needed. Also after spreading the
market value of the used fertiliser is low due to damage and
the mixing of different products.
Reumers et al. (2003b) used a hybrid strategy to estimate
spreading patterns. The experimental equipment they used
was cheaper and more compact than spreading halls and it
consumed less fertiliser. A cylindrical measuring device with
a set of compartments is used to intercept and collect the
particles immediately after leaving the disc. The result is the
so-called cylindrical distribution pattern. Using photographic
images, the horizontal velocity vectors of the particles can be
estimated and used to calculate the ballistic flight which then
results in approximations of the complete transverse and
static (stationary) distribution patterns.
Centrifugal spreaders have been modelled by several
researchers to predict and to determine the influence of various
parameters on the spreading pattern. Dintwa, Van Liedekerke,
Olieslagers, Tijskens, and Ramon (2004) and Aphale et al.
(2003) developed analytical models based on basic equations
of motion to predict the behaviour of a single particle on
a rotating disc with a straight radial vane. The total spread
pattern was determined statistically by determining the
trajectories for a number of single particles, each with different
initial conditions (Dintwa, Van Liedekerke et al., 2004). This type
of model cannot take particleeparticle interaction into account
which is experienced when the particles flow from the hopper,
move on the disc along the vane or during free flight after
leaving the disc. Villette, Cointault, Piron, and Chopinet (2005)
developed a similar model for a single particle on a concave
disc with pitched straight vanes. Olieslagers, Ramon, and De
Baerrdemaeker (1996) developed an analytical model for
conical discs with straight and curved vanes. Particle interac-
tion for particles flowing out of the hopper until they reach the
disc was taken into account by changing the initial particle

Table 1 e Comparison between experiments and simulations with disk speed u [ 400 rpm, feed rate [ 523 g sL1, feed
position [ (35, L50) mm and vane angle q [ 0 .
DEM properties Statistical analysis

Reference Figure Particle Particle-wall Particleeparticle Damping Relative Average Average Angular Radial
stiffness kn Friction mw [] friction mp [] ratio x [ ] deviation angle a Radius Width Width
[N m1] RD r [m] b c [m]

Experiment 1 9 e e e e e 106.1 2.366 7.3 0.102

DEM 1 11 1 104 0.3 0.3 0.5 23.4% 97.5 2.059 6.7 0.084
DEM 2 11 1 105 0.3 0.3 0.5 25.2% 96.8 2.022 6.6 0.069
DEM 3 12 1 104 0.1 0.3 0.5 32.4% 82.2 2.385 8.0 0.075
DEM 4 12 1 104 0.5 0.3 0.5 29.2% 118.7 1.952 6.5 0.081
DEM 5 13 1 104 0.3 0.1 0.5 30.3% 96.8 2.198 6.8 0.067
DEM 6 13 1 104 0.3 0.5 0.5 24.4% 98.5 2.057 6.6 0.075
DEM 7 14 1 104 0.3 0.3 0.3 24.4% 96.5 2.086 6.7 0.072
DEM 8 14 1 104 0.3 0.3 0.7 25.5% 96.7 2.071 6.6 0.075
312 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 0 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 3 0 8 e3 2 5

could provide a powerful instrument for the development of

Table 2 e Calibrated DEM parameters.
Description
Particle density rp
Fertiliser bulk density rb
Particle stiffness kn ¼ ks
Particleeparticle friction mp
Particle-wall friction mw
Wall stiffness kn ¼ ks
Critical damping ratio x
Particle diameter distribution
new designs of spreaders and fertilisers.
Value In this paper the first objective is to develop an accurate
1800 kg m3 DEM model of a single spinning disc. A sensitivity study
998 kg m3 using a range of DEM parameter values was carried out and
1  104 N m1 the resulting spread pattern compared to experimental
0.3 results to find the most suitable set of DEM parameters. The
0.3
second objective was to make use of a deflector plate to
1  106 N m1
obtain a spread pattern that is ideal for fruit orchards. The
0.5
4.0e5.0 mm - 45% aim was to apply the fertiliser in two rows 0.8 me1.0 m on
2.8e4.0 mm - 50% each side of the apple tree trunk as shown in Fig. 1 for a row
2.0e2.8 mm - 5% width of 4.5 m. The DEM results of the spinning disc with and
without the deflector were then to be compared to experi-
mental results.

positions on the disc from the actual orifice dimensions.

However, to find these dimensions, a calibration procedure was
required (Van Liedekerke et al., 2008).Particleeparticle interac-
tion on the disc was not taken into account.
The discrete element method (DEM) has been used to
model centrifugal fertiliser spreaders (Van Liedekerke et al.,
2008,2006; Van Liedekerke, Tijskens, Dintwa et al., 2009; Van
Liedekerke, Tijskens, & Ramon, 2009). Close agreement
between experimental and DEM results was achieved and Van
Liedekerke, Tijskens, & Ramon (2009) concluded that DEM
2. Experimental methods
In the experimental setup a hopper that could contain
a maximum of roughly 30 kg of fertiliser was used. The hopper
opening could be set to achieve flow rates of 88, 250 or
523 g s1. The flow rate was measured by suspending the
hopper from a load cell. It was found that, except for the first
and last few seconds of discharge, flow rates were constant.

Fig. 6 e Development of the spread pattern from the (a) stationary spread pattern to the (f) moving transverse distribution.
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 0 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 3 0 8 e3 2 5
Fig. 7 e (a) Close up of the DEM model showing the particle
tube, disk, vanes and particles and (b) the DEM model
including the deflector.
A disc with a diameter of 300 mm was used with rotation
speeds of 300, 400 and 500 rpm. A total of 800 collector trays,
each with dimensions of 180 by 180 mm wide and 75 mm
deep, were used to cover the spreading area of roughly 24 m2
(Fig. 2). For a detailed comparison of the different test methods
and fertiliser testing standards see Jones et al. (2008).
The disc was fitted with two vanes, 30 mm high with
a horizontal flap of 25 mm (Fig. 3a). The vane angle could be
set backwards as shown in Fig. 3b and the feed position (i.e.
centre of the hopper orifice) was defined by the coordinate
system as shown in Fig. 3c.
Fig. 4 shows the deflector used to deflect the flow of
particles towards the tree line. Several deflectors with
different curvatures and positions relative to the disc were
tested, but only the final deflector design and results are
presented here.
In literature different terms are used to define the spread
patterns. The spread patterns used in this paper are defined in
Delete DEM particle and store data
Complete path solved using ballistic equations
z
Calculate landing position
x
Fig. 8 e Schematic showing the ballistic flight of a particle
and the landing position.
313
Fig. 5. The stationary (or static) pattern is the two-dimensional
spread pattern measured when the tractor is stationary.
When the distribution is moved along a transverse line in the
stationary pattern, it is called the stationary transverse
distribution (Fig. 5a). When the tractor is moving forward,
several stationary patterns are overlaid to form what is
defined as the moving pattern (Fig. 5b). The distribution along
a transverse line in the moving pattern is defined as the
moving transverse distribution (Fig. 5b).
The fertiliser used in the experiments was calcium
ammonium nitrate (CAN) and approximately spherical in
shape. The particle size distribution, as shown in Table 2, was
measured and used in the DEM model. The hopper was filled
three times so that a minimum of 90 kg of fertiliser was spread
during each experiment. The collector trays were then indi-
vidually weighed to directly determine the stationary
spreading pattern, Fig. 6a. Fig. 6 also shows the subsequent
steps used to determine the final moving transverse distri-
bution. Firstly the spread pattern was mirrored (Fig. 6b), then
the two patterns were moved together and overlaid such that
the two discs were located as in practice (Fig. 6c). The pattern
was then moved and overlaid in the direction of tractor
motion as shown in Fig. 6d. The initial and final transition
sections were then cut away to obtain the final moving pattern
(Fig. 6e). The final moving transverse distribution was then
obtained by taking the distribution along a transverse line
(Fig. 6f). Note that the spreading pattern in Fig. 6f was nor-
malised by dividing the weight in each tray by the total weight
of fertiliser as used (i.e. applied) in Fig. 6d. The exact quantities
deposited are not important, since the same procedure was
used in all analyses (experimental and DEM model) and the
results were only used for comparison.
3. DEM simulation
A commercial DEM package, PFC3D (Itasca, 2003) was used for all
the simulations. PFC3D only makes use of spherical particles or
two or more spherical particles clumped together into a single
rigid “super-particle”. Since the fertiliser particles used in the
experiment were fairly spherical, only single spherical particles
Fig. 9 e Reference experimental stationary spread pattern
with disk speed u [ 400 rpm, feed rate [ 523 g,sL1, feed
position [ (35, L50) mm, vane angle q [ 0 .
314 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 0 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 3 0 8 e3 2 5

Fig. 10 e Stationary spread patterns using different numbers of particles in the DEM model.

were used in the DEM model. Although Van Liedekerke (2007)
proposes a non-linear Hertz-Kono-Kuwabara contact model,
in this study a linear contact model was used with viscous
damping assumed at the contacts (Itasca, 2003).
Fig. 7 shows the two forms of DEM model used. Fig. 7a
shows the basic model without the deflector. Modelling the
complete hopper with thousands of particles would be
inefficient. Instead, a vertical rectangular tube with the same
cross section as that of the hopper opening was used.
Approximately 1000 particles were injected down the tube and
allowed to settle under gravity. The coordinates and proper-
ties of each particle was then stored. Using the tube cross
sectional area, the bulk density and the required flow rate
(g s1), the downward velocity of the particles could be

Fig. 11 e DEM stationary spread patterns for different particle stiffness values and mw [ 0.3, mp [ 0.3 and x [ 0.5.
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 0 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 3 0 8 e3 2 5 315

Fig. 12 e DEM stationary spread patterns for different particle-wall friction coefficients and kn [ 1 3 104 N mL1, mp [ 0.3 and
x [ 0.5.

Fig. 13 e DEM stationary spread patterns for different particleeparticle friction coefficients and kn [ 1 3 104 N mL1, mw [ 0.3
and x [ 0.5.

Fig. 14 e DEM stationary spread patterns for different contact damping ratios and kn [ 1 3 104 N mL1, mw [ 0.3 and mp [ 0.3.
316 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 0 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 3 0 8 e3 2 5

Fig. 15 e Experimental and DEM stationary spread patterns for different disk speeds with feed rate [ 523 g sL1, feed
position [ (35, L50) mm, vane angle q [ 0 .
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 0 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 3 0 8 e3 2 5 317

A method was employed to speed up the calculations. As

300 rpm Experiment
0.1 soon as a particle was further than 200 mm away from the
DEM
0.09 RD = 5.7% centre of the disc, its coordinates, velocity vector, radius and
density were recorded and the particle deleted. After the
0.08
simulation completed, the trajectory of each particle was
0.07
calculated using a procedure in Matlab (Version 7, The Math-
0.06 works, Inc., Natick, MA, U.S.A). During this part of plotting
0.05 trajectories, particleeparticle interaction was assumed to be
0.04 negligible and the coordinates where the particle would land
0.03 were predicted. The trajectory was calculated by solving the
following set of non-linear second order differential equations
0.02
(Olieslagers et al., 1996) using the Matlab fourth-order Runga-
0.01
Kutta (ode45) routine,
0
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2  2
2
0.1 400 rpm d x dx dx dz
¼ K þ (1)
RD = 7.1% dt2 dt dt dt
0.09
0.08 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Spread density [-]

2  2  2
d z dz dx dz
0.07 ¼ g  K þ (2)
dt2 dt dt dt
0.06
0.05 where
0.04 3Cd ra
K¼
0.03 4rp d
0.02
0.01
with Cd [] the particle drag coefficient, ra ¼ 1.2 kg m3 the
density of air, rp [kg m3] the particle density, d [m] the
0
particle diameter and g ¼ 9.81 m s2 the gravitational accel-
0.1 500 rpm eration. The coordinate system used is defined in Fig. 8. In the
test case, deleting the particles decreased the calculation time
0.09 RD = 10.2%
from 16.0 h simulation time per second to 2.7 h per second.
0.08 Deleting the particles could however not be done when the
0.07 deflector was modelled. The particles were allowed to
0.06 complete the whole trajectory and the landing positions were
0.05 recorded in PFC3D. A typical deflector simulation took 14 h of
calculation time per second.
0.04
The spherical particles were generated using the measured
0.03
size distribution as shown in Table 2. The bulk density of the
0.02 fertiliser was measured as 1013 kg m3 and the particles in the
0.01 model were given a density of 1800 kg m3 which resulted in
0 a bulk density within 1.5% of the measured value.
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
The constant drag coefficient Cd ¼ 0.44 of a sphere was used
Transverse direction [m] in all the simulations. This value was used by Olieslagers et al.
(1996), Aphale et al. (2003), Grift and Hofstee (2002) and Van
Fig. 16 e Experimental and DEM moving transverse Liedekerke, Tijskens, & Ramon, 2009. Aphale et al. (2003) also
distributions for different disk speeds, with feed showed that for a fertiliser particle of diameter 2 mm, the
rate [ 523 g sL1, feed position [ (35, L50) mm, vane angle transition to a constant drag coefficient is typically around
q [ 0 . a Reynolds number of 50, i.e., equivalent to a particle speed of
0.4 m s1. A typical particle will leave a 300 mm diameter disc
rotating at 540 rpm at a velocity of roughly 10 m s1, which
justifies the use of a constant Cd value. The other DEM
calculated. All particles were given this initial velocity. When
parameters (particle friction and particle stiffness) were
all the particles reached the end of the tube, another batch of
determined through a sensitivity analysis which will be
the stored particles was created inside the tube using
described in the next section.
a vertical offset. The position of the highest particle in the tube
was used to calculate the offset to avoid overlapping of the
batches. This resulted in a steady flow of particles from the
tube onto the disc and was within 1% of the measured flow 4. DEM simulation calibration
rate. Each new batch of particles generated was given
a different colour for visual observations (Fig. 7a). Fig. 7b The effect of the DEM parameters on the stationary spread
shows the form of the DEM model including the deflector. pattern was compared to the experimental result, as shown in
318 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 0 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 3 0 8 e3 2 5

Table 3 e Comparison between experiments and simulations with the particle stiffness kn [ 1 104 N,mL1, particle-wall
friction mw [ 0.3, particleeparticle friction mp [ 0.3 and the damping ratio x [ 0.5.
Setup Statistical analysis

Reference Figure Disk Feed Feed Vane Relative Average Average Angular Radial
speed rate [g s1] position angle deviation RD angle a radius r [m] width b width
[rpm] [mm] c [m]

Experiment 2 15 300 523 (35,50) 0 e 111.0 2.096 8.6 0.107

DEM 9 15 300 523 (35,50) 0 21.0% 101.8 1.983 6.9 0.084
Experiment 3 15 500 523 (35,50) 0 e 103.5 2.734 7.2 0.109
DEM 10 15 500 523 (35,50) 0 21.1% 95.4 2.815 6.8 0.086
Experiment 4 17 400 88 (35,50) 0 e 109.1 2.519 4.3 0.088
DEM 11 17 400 88 (35,50) 0 25.1% 103.6 2.567 4.8 0.062
Experiment 5 17 400 250 (35,50) 0 e 108.8 2.432 5.3 0.094
DEM 12 17 400 250 (35,50) 0 24.8% 107.1 2.545 5.9 0.073
Experiment 6 20 400 523 (35,50) 50 e 90.6 2.513 6.1 0.102
DEM 13 20 400 523 (35,50) 50 20.5% 92.2 2.099 6.3 0.086
Experiment 7 20 400 523 (35,50) 100 e 81.2 2.496 6.6 0.104
DEM 14 20 400 523 (35,50) 100 26.3% 82.1 2.103 6.0 0.088

Fig. 9 and Table 1 (Experiment 1), with a disc speed of 400 rpm,
feed rate of 523 g s1, a feed position of (x,y) ¼ (35,50) mm and
a 0 vane angle.
To compare the DEM results to the experimental results,
the following five parameters were used (Van Liedekerke,
Tijskens, Dintwa et al., 2009). The average distribution angle
was defined as:
XX
a¼ fij aij (3)
j i
where i and j run from one to the number of columns and rows
respectively, aij is the angle of the ij-th collector tray as defined
in Fig. 9 and fij ¼ Mij =Mtotal is the mass fraction of particles in
the collector tray. The angular width was defined as:
4.1. Number of particles used in simulation
In each experiment 90 kg of fertiliser was used which is in the
order of 106 particles. It would be very time consuming to use
this number of particles in the DEM model, so the evolving
stationary spread pattern was plotted at intervals to find the
number of particles where the predicted pattern converges.
From Fig. 10 it can be seen that the pattern changed slightly up
to the point where roughly 10,000 particles were used (the
equivalent of approximately 0.6 kg). Beyond this point, there
was no significant change in the pattern. Thus, in this paper
10,000 particles were used in each simulation. Van Liedekerke,
Tijskens, & Ramon, 2009 made use of 7000 particles.

XX   4.2. Particle stiffness

b¼ fij aij  a (4)
j i
Two particle normal stiffness kn values were used,
Similarly the average distribution radius was defined as: 1  104 N m1 and 1  105 N m1. The particleeparticle friction
XX coefficient was set at mp ¼ 0.3, the particle-wall friction coef-
r¼ fij rij (5) ficient at mw ¼ 0.3 and the damping ratio at x ¼ 0.5. The results
j i
can be seen in Fig. 11 and Table 1 (DEM 1 and DEM 2) where it is
where rij is the radius measured from the disc centre to the clear that the stiffness had a small influence on the spread
centre of the ij-th collector tray. The radial width was defined pattern. Comparing the results to the experimental result in
as: Fig. 9, it was decided to make use of a stiffness of 1  104 N m1
XX   with a relative deviation of RD ¼ 23.4%. The higher stiffness
c¼ fij rij  r (6) resulted in a slightly narrower pattern, especially towards the
j i
“tail”. The radial width with the higher stiffness was calcu-
The deviation function (RD) was used to quantify the lated as c ¼ 0:069 m versus c ¼ 0:084 m for the lower stiffness.
differences (relative error) between the measured and simu- In all simulations, the particle shear stiffness ks was taken
lated stationary patterns, equal to the particle normal stiffness and the wall normal and
P P  shear stiffness was set to 1  106 N m1.
Mij ðexpÞ  Mij ðsimÞj
j i
Van Liedekerke, Tijskens, & Ramon, 2009 made use of a non-
RDðexp; simÞ ¼ (7) linear normal contact model and used values for the normal
Mtotal ðexpÞ þ Mtotal ðsimÞ
stiffness that varied from 1.3,106 N m3/2 to 1.3,108 N m3/2.
and similarly the RD value can be taken along a transverse line
They concluded that the particle stiffness appears to have very
(stationary or moving as shown in Fig. 5):
little influence on the spread pattern.

P 
Mij ðexpÞ  Mij ðsimÞj 4.3. Particle-wall friction coefficient
i
RDj ðexp; simÞ ¼ (8)
Mj ðexpÞ þ Mj ðsimÞ
According to Hofstee and Huisman (1990), the particle-wall
where Mj is the total mass in the j-th row (transverse line). (particle-disc and particle-vane) friction coefficient influences
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 0 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 3 0 8 e3 2 5 319

Fig. 17 e Experimental and DEM stationary spread patterns for different feed rates with disk speed u [ 400 rpm, feed
position [ (35, L50) mm, vane angle q [ 0 .

the particle discharge velocity from the disc, the discharge
angle (i.e. the angle between the radial and tangential
discharge velocities) and the discharge position (period that
a particle stays on the disc). Grift, Kweon, Hofstee, Piron, and
Villette (2006) showed that the dynamic friction coefficient is
inversely proportional to the particle diameter and found
a mean value of 0.36 for urea fertiliser granules. Hofstee (1992)
made use of a rotating plate device to measure the dynamic
friction coefficient between fertiliser and different surfaces.
The relative velocity varied between 1 m s1 and 21 m s1 while
the normal load varied between 0.130 N and 0.522 N.The fric-
tion coefficient with steel was found to be between 0.34 and
0.45. Kweon, Grift, and Miclet (2007) made use of a spinning-
tube device to measure the dynamic friction coefficient.
Experiments with near-spherical ammonium nitrate particles
resulted in a value of 0.31. Van Liedekerke et al. (2006); Van
Liedekerke, Tijskens, Dintwa et al. (2009) measured the
dynamic friction coefficient between NPK particles and a steel
plate by letting a cluster of particles slide on an inclined plate
until it reached a constant velocity. The slope of the plate was
used to calculate the friction coefficient as 0.35.
In this study, three values were used for the particle-wall
friction coefficient, mw ¼ 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5. The particle stiff-
ness was set to kn ¼ 1  104 N m1, the particleeparticle fric-
tion coefficient was set at mp ¼ 0.3 and the damping ratio at
x ¼ 0.5. The results are shown in Fig. 12 and Table 1 (DEM 3 and
320 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 0 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 3 0 8 e3 2 5

Van Liedekerke, Tijskens, & Ramon, 2009 obtained similar

0.1 88 g s-1 Experiment results from a DEM model of a cylindrical measuring device
0.09 RD = 10.7% DEM
around the outer edge of the spinning disc. It was decided to
0.08 take mw ¼ 0.3 in all further models since it had the lowest
0.07 relative deviation RD ¼ 23.4% and the most accurate average
angle a ¼ 97:5 compared to the experimental average angle
0.06
a ¼ 106:1 .
0.05
0.04 4.4. Particleeparticle friction coefficient
0.03
0.02 Since it is hard to measure particleeparticle friction coeffi-
0.01 cients, Van Liedekerke, Tijskens, Dintwa et al., 2009 used the
same value as used for the particle-wall friction coefficient. In
0
their DEM model, Van Liedekerke, Tijskens, & Ramon, 2009
0.1
250 g s-1 used particleeparticle friction coefficients between 0.1 and
RD = 12.8% 0.7 while keeping the particle-wall friction coefficient
0.09
constant at mw ¼ 0.35. In this study, three values were used for
0.08
the particleeparticle friction coefficient, mp ¼ 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5
Spread density [-]

0.07 while the particle-wall friction coefficient was kept constant

0.06 at mw ¼ 0.3, the particle stiffness kn ¼ 1  104 N m1 and the
0.05 damping ratio at x ¼ 0.5.
0.04 The results are shown in Fig. 13 and Table 1 (DEM 5 and DEM
6). Similar to an increase in the particle-wall friction coeffi-
0.03
cient, an increase in the particleeparticle friction coefficient
0.02
caused the spread pattern to rotate in a counter-clockwise
0.01 direction. The effect was, however, less distinct compared to
0 the effect of the particle-wall friction coefficient with a change
of only 1.7 when the friction value was changed from 0.1 to
0.1 523 g s-1
0.5. One reason for this might be that the particle-vane normal
0.09 RD = 7.1% forces are higher than the particleeparticle normal forces (Van
0.08 Liedekerke, Tijskens, & Ramon, 2009). It was decided to
0.07 assume mp ¼ 0.3 in all further models since it showed the
lowest relative deviation and the most accurate radial width
0.06
c ¼ 0:084 mcompared to the experimental width c ¼ 0:102 m.
0.05
0.04 4.5. Contact damping coefficient
0.03
0.02 Contact viscous damping (Itasca, 2003) was used and specified
0.01 in terms of the critical damping ratio 0  x  1. Van Liedekerke,
Tijskens, & Ramon, 2009 investigated the effect of the resti-
0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 tution coefficient COR on the spread pattern in their DEM
Transverse direction [m] model. They used COR ¼ 0.2 and COR ¼ 0.8 and concluded that
it had very little influence on the spread pattern, but a lower
restitution coefficient did produce a slightly wider pattern as
Fig. 18 e Experimental and DEM moving transverse
measured in the cylindrical device. Hofstee (1992) determined
distributions for different feed rates with disk speed
the restitution coefficient by measuring the particle velocity
u [ 400 rpm, feed position [ (35, L50) mm, vane angle
just before and just after impact. The restitution coefficient for
q [ 0 .
different fertilisers on different surfaces for different particle
diameters was determined. The mean value for steel was
found to be 0.215. Kweon and Grift (2006) reported that
DEM 4). It is clear that with an increase in the friction coeffi- although the influence of the restitution coefficient was
cient, the spread patterns shifted slightly closer towards the considered to be important, however the effect thereof was
disc due to the lower outlet velocities. The average radial debatable when a mass flow regime was assumed, rather than
distances for mw ¼ 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5 were found to be individual particles.
r ¼ 2:4 m; 2:1 m and 2:0 m respectively. The disc rotated in In this study three damping ratios were investigated,
a counter-clockwise direction and it is clear that the particles namely x ¼ 0.3, x ¼ 0.5 and x ¼ 0.7. The particle-wall friction
remained longer on the disc with an increase in the friction coefficient was set at mw ¼ 0.3, the particle stiffness was set to
coefficient which shifted the spreading pattern in a counter- kn ¼ 1,104 N m1 and the particleeparticle friction coefficient
clockwise direction. The average angles for mw ¼ 0.1, 0.3 and was set at mp¼ 0.3. Using the relation between the damping
0.5 were found to be a ¼ 82:2 ; 97:5 and 118:7 respectively. ratio and the coefficient of restitution given by Itasca (2003),
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 0 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 3 0 8 e3 2 5 321

Fig. 19 e Experimental and DEM stationary spread patterns for different feed positions with disk speed u [ 400 rpm, feed
rate [ 523 g sL1, vane angle q [ 0 .

xp 5.1. Disc rotation speed

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
COR ¼ e 1z 2
(9)
the three damping ratios correspond to coefficients of resti-
tution of COR ¼ 0.372, COR ¼ 0.163 and COR ¼ 0.046 respec-
tively. The results are shown in Fig. 14 and Table 1 (DEM 7 and
DEM 8). The damping ratio had very little effect on the spread
pattern and a value of x ¼ 0.5 was used in all further models
since it showed the lowest relative deviation.
4.6. Final set of DEM parameters
Table 2 summaries the final set of DEM parameters used in all
further models and simulations.
5. Spreader setting results
In this section, the DEM results are compared to the experi-
mental results for different disc speeds, feed rates, feed
positions and vane angles. The aim is to demonstrate that the
DEM model can accurately predict all the trends observed
when the setup parameters were changed.
Three speeds were used, 300 rpm, 400 rpm and 500 rpm. The feed
rate was set to 523 g s1, the feeding position was set to
(x,y) ¼ (35,50) mm and the vane angle q ¼ 0 . Fig. 15 shows the
stationary spread patterns as obtained from the experiments
and DEM simulations. Note that in this plot the DEM results were
mirrored so that the disc was rotating clockwise while the disc in
the experimental results was rotating counter-clockwise. From
the results in Fig. 15, Table 1 and Table 3 it is clear that with an
increase in the disc speed, the spread patterns moved further
away from the disc. The measured average radial distances
were r ¼ 2:1 m; 2:4 m and 2:7 m respectively while the DEM
model predicted r ¼ 2:0 m; 2:1 m and 2:8 m respectively.
Also, with an increase in the disc speed, the particles left the
disc earlier and resulted in a decrease in the average angle.
Themeasured average angles were a ¼ 111:0 ; 106:1 and 103:5
respectively while the DEM model predicted a ¼ 101:8 ;
97:5 ; and 95:4 respectively. A similar trend was observed by
Van Liedekerke, Tijskens, Dintwa et al., 2009, although in
a cylindrical measuring device.
Fig. 16 compares the experimental and DEM moving
transverse distributions. It is clear that with an increase in the
322 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 0 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 3 0 8 e3 2 5
Fig. 20 e Experimental and DEM stationary spread patterns for different vane angles with disk speed u [ 400 rpm, feed
rate [ 523 g sL1, feed position [ (35, L50) mm.
disc speed, the distribution became wider. The DEM model
was able to predict the general trends and was more accurate
with lower disc speeds. One reason for this might be the
assumption of a constant drag coefficient. With higher
particle speeds, the drag coefficient changes and hence
influences the aerodynamic effects and the landing position.
This was not included in the DEM model. The differences
might also be attributed to the change in friction coefficient. It
is well known that the friction coefficient decreases with an
increase in relative contact velocity (Hofstee, 1992). In the DEM
model a constant friction coefficient was assumed. The rela-
tive deviation along the moving transverse distribution was
found to be 5.7%, 7.1% and 10.2% for rotation speeds of
300 rpm, 400 rpm and 500 rpm respectively.
5.2. Feed rate
Three feed rates were used, 88 g s1, 250 g s1 and 523 g s1. The
disc speed was set to 400 rpm, the feeding position was set to
(x,y) ¼ (35,50) mm and the vane angle q ¼ 0 . Fig. 17 shows the
stationary spread patterns as obtained from the experiments
and DEM simulations and the results are summarised in Table 1
and Table 3. From the experimental results it is clear that with
an increase in the feed rate, the spread pattern widened as more
particles left the disc later. The measured angular widths were
found to be b ¼ 4:3 ; 5:3 ; and 7:3 respectively while the DEM
model predicted b ¼ 4:8 ; 5:9 ; and 6:7 respectively. Reumers
et al. (2003a) made similar experimental observations using
a cylindrical measuring device while Van Liedekerke, Tijskens,
& Ramon, 2009 also obtained similar DEM results in modelling
the same device. The DEM model was able to predict this
general trend with an increase in feed rate. For lower feed rates,
however, the DEM model predicted a narrower band compared
to the experimental results. The measured radial widths were
found to be c ¼ 0:088 m; 0:094 m and 0:102 m with an increase
in the flow rate while the DEM model predicted c ¼ 0:062 m;
0:073 m and 0:084 m respectively.
Fig. 18 compares the moving transverse distributions
from experimental and DEM results for the different feed
rates. Again, with an increase in the feed rate, the distribu-
tion became wider, especially in the transverse direction at
2 m. For all feed rates, the DEM model predicted two
“shoulders” in the distribution at 2 m. In the experimental
results, these “shoulders” only became prominent with the
highest feed rate of 523 g s1. The relative deviation along the
moving transverse distribution were found to be 10.7%, 12.8%
and 7.1% for feed rates of 88 g s1, 250 g s1 and 523 g s1
respectively.
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 0 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 3 0 8 e3 2 5
Fig. 21 e The deflector design showing the geometry,
dimensions and the position relative to the disc. All
dimensions are in mm.
5.3. Feed position
The feed position was defined in Fig. 3c. All experiments and
simulations presented up until now used a feed position of
(x,y) ¼ (35, 50) mm. Here the feed position was changed while
the disc speed was kept at 400 rpm, the feed rate at 523 g s1
and the vane angle at q ¼ 0 . First the feed position was
changed to (35, 70) mm and then to (35, 105) mm as shown
in Fig. 19. Unfortunately a large portion of the spread pattern
fell outside the collecting area, but the general trend can still
Fig. 22 e Experimental and DEM stationary spread patterns using the deflector with disk speed u [ 400 rpm, feed
rate [ 523 g sL1, feed position [ (35, L50) mm, vane angle q [ 0 . RD [ 20.0%.
323
be concluded from the results. It is clear that as the y-coor-
dinate of the feed position was changed, the stationary spread
pattern rotated in the direction opposite to the disc rotation as
expected. The DEM model was able to predict this trend
although it predicted a distribution roughly 0.5 m wider in the
transverse direction compared to the measured distribution.
5.4. Vane angle
The vane angle was defined in Fig. 3b. All the experiments and
simulations presented up until now made use of a 0 vane
angle (radial vanes). Here the vane angle was changed to 50
and 100 . The feed position was kept at (35, 50) mm, the disc
speed at 400 rpm and the feed rate at 523 g s1. The stationary
spread patterns are shown in Fig. 20 and the results are sum-
marised in Table 1 and Table 3. It is clear form these results that
with an increase in the vane angle, the spread pattern rotated
in the direction opposite to the disc rotation. The average angle
was measured as a ¼ 106:1 ; 90:6 and 81:2 with an increase in
the vane angle while the DEM model predicted values of 97.5 ,
92.2 and 82.1 respectively. Dintwa, Tijskens, Olieslagers, De
Baerdemaeker, and Ramon (2004) obtained similar results
using an analytical model of a single particle on a spinning disc
with different initial particle positions.
6. Deflector results
As described in the introduction, it could be more efficient and
environmentally friendly if the fertiliser was spread in two
rows to accommodate fruit orchards. To accomplish this,
a U-shaped deflector plate was designed as shown in Fig. 4. To
design the deflector, the stationary spread patterns (without
the deflector and from both experiments and DEM) were
investigated together with the fertiliser flight path as it leaves
the disc. The DEM model made it easy to obtain the particle
324 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 0 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 3 0 8 e3 2 5
0.18
RD = 16.9%
0.16
0.14
0.12
Spread density [-]
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
Transverse direction [m]
Fig. 23 e Experimental and DEM moving transverse
distributions using the deflector with disk speed
u [ 400 rpm, feed rate [ 523 g sL1, feed position [ (35, L50)
mm, vane angle q [ 0 .
flight paths and could be used to determine where a particle
would land if it were to be deflected. The deflector was placed
and orientated such that the flight paths of particles predicted
not to end up in the desired area were changed, so that they
ended up as close as possible to the desired area. It was
assumed that the angle of reflection is the same as the angle of
incidence. A trial-and-error procedure was followed and two
deflectors, each with different radii, were designed. The
position and orientation of each deflector relative to the disc
were varied until satisfactory results were obtained. The
designed deflector and the position relative to the disc which
resulted in the best results are shown in Fig. 21.
The deflector was tested with a feed rate of 523 g s1, a disc
speed of 400 rpm, a vane angle of 0 and a feed position of
(35, 50) mm. Fig. 22 shows the resulting stationary spread
pattern. It can clearly be seen how the deflector plate deflected
the fertiliser. Note that not all particles were deflected by the
deflector plate and some particles, leaving the disc later, missed
the deflector but still landed in the desired area. Comparing the
experimental and predicted DEM stationary spread patterns
resulted in a relative deviation RD ¼ 20.0%. Fig. 23 shows the
moving transverse distributions. The relative deviation based
on the transverse moving distribution was RD ¼ 16.9%. The two
peeks are clearly visible and the gray shaded areas indicate the
ideal spread areas as shown in Fig. 1. From Figs. 22 and 23, it is
clear that the DEM model could accurately predict the spread
patterns. In Fig. 23, the model accurately predicted the position
of the peeks, but the distribution was slightly wider at the base
compared to the experimental result.
7. Conclusion
A DEM model of a centrifugal fertiliser spreader was developed.
A single set of spreader settings was used to experimentally
measure the reference spread pattern. A sensitivity study was
then used to determine the most accurate set of DEM
parameters. The particle-wall friction coefficient, the parti-
Experiment cleeparticle friction coefficient, the particle stiffness and the
DEM
contact damping ratio were individually changed and the
resulting spread pattern compared to the reference pattern. It
was found that the model is not sensitive to particle stiffness or
contact damping. Particle-wall friction influenced the results
the most, followed by the particleeparticle friction coefficient.
With an increase in the friction coefficients, the particles stayed
longer on the disc and this caused the spread pattern to rotate in
the same direction as the disc.
The spread pattern was determined experimentally for
different spreader settings. The effect of the disc speed, the
feed rate, the feed position and the vane angle was investi-
gated. It was shown that with an increase in the disc speed,
4 6 8 the spread pattern moved further away from the disc. Also,
with an increase in the disc speed, the particles left the disc
earlier so that the pattern rotated in the direction opposite to
the direction of disc rotation. With an increase in the feed rate,
the spread pattern widened as more particles left the disc
later. The vane angle was moved backwards and this resulted
in the spread pattern moving in the direction opposite to the
direction of disc rotation. The DEM model could accurately
predict all these trends and in most cases good quantitative
correlations with the experimental results were found.
The designed deflector plate was then tested and it was
found that the flow can be separated into two paths so that the
fertiliser was mainly applied in the region of the tree trunk.
The results from the DEM model of the deflector compared
very well to the experimental measurements. Note that the
deflector might be too large for practical applications; it was
simply used to demonstrate the concept and validate the DEM
model. Further research will be carried out to find a more
practical design in terms of the deflector size. It is concluded
that DEM is a valuable tool in the development, testing and
calibration of centrifugal fertiliser spreaders.
references
Aphale, A., Bolander, N., Park, J., Shaw, L., Svec, J., & Wassgren, C.
(2003). Granular fertilizer particle dynamics on and off
a spinner spreader. Biosystems Engineering, 85(3), 319e329.
Atkinson, D. (1976). Preliminary observations of the effect of
spacing on the apple root system. Scientia Horticulturae, 4,
285e290.
De Silva, H. N., Hall, A. J., Tustin, D. S., & Gandar, P. W. (1999).
Analysis of distribution of root length density of apple trees on
different dwarfing rootstocks. Annals of Botany, 83, 335e345.
Dintwa, E., Tijskens, E., Olieslagers, R., De Baerdemaeker, J., &
Ramon, H. (2004). Calibration of a spinning disc spreader
simulation model for accurate site-specific fertiliser
application. Biosystems Engineering, 88(1), 49e62.
Dintwa, E., Van Liedekerke, P., Olieslagers, R., Tijskens, E., &
Ramon, H. (2004). Model for simulation of particle flow on
a centrifugal fertiliser spreader. Biosystems Engineering, 87(4),
407e415.
Grift, T. E., & Hofstee, J. W. (2002). Testing an online spread
pattern determination sensor on a broadcast fertilizer
spreader. Transactions of the ASAE, 45(3), 561e567.
Grift, T. E., Kweon, G., Hofstee, J. W., Piron, E., & Villette, S. (2006).
Dynamic friction coefficient measurement of granular
fertiliser particles. Biosystems Engineering, 95(4), 507e515.
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 0 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 3 0 8 e3 2 5
Hofstee, J. W. (1992). Handling and spreading of fertilizers:
part 2, physical propertries of fertilizer, measuring
methods and data. Journal of Agricultural Engineering
Research, 53, 141e162.
Hofstee, J. W., & Huisman, W. (1990). Handling and spreading of
fertilizers part 1: physical properties of fertilizer in relation to
particle motion. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 47,
213e234.
ITASCA. (2003). PFC3D, particle flow code in three dimensions, user’s
guide (2nd ed. ).
Jones, J. R., Hayden, G. L., & Yule, I. J. (2008). A statistical comparison
of international fertiliser spreader test methods e confidence in
bout width calculations. Powder Technology, 184, 337e351.
Kweon, G., & Grift, T. E. (2006). Feed gate adaption of a spinner
spreader for uniform control. Biosystems Engineering, 95(1), 19034.
Kweon, G., Grift, T. E., & Miclet, D. (2007). A spinning-tube device
for dynamic friction coefficient measurements of granular
fertiliser particles. Biosystems Engineering, 97, 145e152.
Moshou, D., Deprez, K., & Ramon, H. (2004). Prediction of
spreading processes using a supervised self-organising map.
Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 65, 77e85.
Olieslagers, R., Ramon, H., & De Baerrdemaeker, J. (1996).
Calculation of fertilizer distribution patterns from a spinning
disc spreader by means of a simulation model. Journal of
Agricultural Engineering Research, 63, 137e152.
Parris, K., & Reille, L. (1999). Proceedings no. 422 Measuring the
environmental impacts of agriculture: use and management of
nutrients. York, UK: The International Fertiliser Society.
Reumers, J., Tijskens, E., & Ramon, H. (2003a). Experimental
characterisation of the tangential and cylindrical fertiliser
distribution pattern from a spinning disc: a parameter study.
Biosystems Engineering, 86(3), 327e337.
Reumers, J., Tijskens, E., & Ramon, H. (2003b). Experimental
characterisation of the tangential and cylindrical fertiliser
distribution pattern from a spinning disc: towards an
325
alternative for spreading hall measurements. Biosystems
Engineering, 86(4), 431e439.
Sogaard, H. T., & Kierkegaard, P. (1994). Yield reduction resulting
from uneven fertilizer distribution. Transactions of the ASAE,
37(6), 1749e1752.
Sokalska, D. I., Haman, D. Z., Szewczuk, A., Sobota, J., & Deren, D.
(2009). Spatial root distribution of mature apple trees under drip
irrigation system. Agricultural Water Management, 96, 917e924.
Van der Linde, G.J., & Pitse, M.A. (2006). The South African
Fertriliser industry. AFA Conference, Cairo, Egypt, February
2006.
Van Liedekerke, P. (2007). Study of the granular fertilizers and the
centrifugal spreader using Discrete Element Method (DEM)
simulations. Phd Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven,
Faculteit Bio-ingenieurswetenskappen.
Van Liedekerke, P., Piron, E., Vangeyte, J., Villette, S., Ramon, H., &
Tijskens, E. (2008). Recent results of experimentation and dem
modelling of centrifugal fertilizer spreading. Granular Matter,
10(4), 247e255.
Van Liedekerke, P., Tijskens, E., Dintwa, E., Anthonis, J., &
Ramon, H. (2006). A discrete element model for simulation of
a spinning disc fertilizer spreader I. Single particle
simulations. Powder Technology, 170, 71e85.
Van Liedekerke, P., Tijskens, E., Dintwa, E., Rioual, F., &
Vangeyte, H. (2009). DEM simulations of the particle flow on
a centrifugal fertilizer spreader. Powder Technology, 190,
348e360.
Van Liedekerke, P., Tijskens, E., & Ramon, H. (2009). Discrete
element simulations of the influence of fertilizer physical
properties on the spread pattern from spinning disc spreaders.
Biosystems Engineering, 102, 392e405.
Villette, S., Cointault, F., Piron, E., & Chopinet, B. (2005).
Centrifugal spreading: an analytical model for the motion of
fertilizer particles on a spinning disc. Biosystems Engineering,
92(2), 157e164.