4.7 Article

Parameter calibration of corncob based on DEM

期刊

ADVANCED POWDER TECHNOLOGY
卷 33, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apt.2022.103699

关键词

DEM; Corncob; Parametercalibration; Plackett-Burman; Box-Behenken

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [52175258]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, simulation tests of corncob calibration parameters were conducted based on the discrete element model. The results demonstrated the reliability of parameter calibration and offered a new method for establishing simulation models of corn ear and other materials.
Corncob is one of the main components of corn ears. Because the mechanical properties of different parts of corncob are very different, and there is a lack of research on the simulation and calibration of corncob parameters at present, the established corn ear or corncob simulation model has low accuracy and poor reliability. In this study, the simulation tests of corncob calibration parameters are carried out based on DEM. Firstly, a modelling method of corncob is proposed to establish sample models of corncob. Then, the DEM simulation parameters that restitution coefficient, static friction coefficient, and rolling friction coef-ficient of particle-particle and particle-geometry, and Poisson's ratio of particle are determined by the Plackett-Burman test and Box-Behnken test. Next, the simulated bending test of corncob is carried out using the calibrated parameters. Finally, by comparing the physical and simulated bending test results, it shows the anti-destructive forces of corncob are 204.52 N and 197.3 N, respectively, with a rel-ative error of 3.53%. This study verifies the reliability of parameter calibration for the discrete element model of corncob and provides a new method for establishing simulation models of corn ear and other materials.(c) 2022 The Society of Powder Technology Japan. Published by Elsevier BV and The Society of Powder Technology Japan. 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