4.7 Article

Calibration and verification of DEM parameters for the quantitative simulation of pharmaceutical powder compression process

期刊

POWDER TECHNOLOGY
卷 378, 期 -, 页码 160-171

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2020.09.019

关键词

Discrete element method; Compression; Luding elasto-plastic contact model; Gradient descent algorithm

资金

  1. Drug Product Development group, Pharmaceutical Sciences at Takeda Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to develop a quantitative simulation calibration and prediction platform for modeling powder compression using DEM and Luding elasto-plastic contact model. Influential parameters were determined and calibration was established between DEM parameters and compression profile of pharmaceutical powders. The platform could successfully provide quantitative predictions on compression profiles of mixtures for solid dose DP development.
In pharmaceutical industry, a deep understanding on the physical properties of drug substance and excipients is critical for the quality control of solid dose drug product. The purpose of this work is to develop a quantitative simulation calibration and prediction platform to model powder compression by applying the Discrete Element Method (DEM). The Luding elasto-plastic contact model was applied for particle-particle interactions. The loading stiffness, the unloading stiffness ratio, and the particle density (which served by adjusting the bulk volume of a specificmass of particles) were determined as influential parameters in this study. Calibration was established between DEM parameters and compression profile of pharmaceutical powders in a short timeframe. This platform could capture the main compressibility characteristics of pharmaceutical materials and could successfully provide quantitative predictions on compression profiles of mixtures. It was recommended for development of solid dose DP especially when the amount of DS was limited. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据