Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 35 references

Discrete Element Parameter Calibration of Livestock Salt Based on Particle Scaling

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Three calibrated contact parameters—salt-salt rolling friction 0.23, restitution 0.544, and salt-steel rolling friction 0.368—reproduce the measured 45.27° salt pile angle in simulation to within 0.6%.

desk verdict Standard DEM calibration pipeline for livestock salt; the parameter set is useful, but the circular validation and identifiability gap mean the central claim is not proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03786 v1 pith:UZXWIIO2 submitted 2025-06-04 eess.SY cs.SYphysics.med-ph

Lulu Nie , Baoqin Wen , Jingbin Li , Shufeng Li , Yali Li , Zhaokun Zhang , Zhiyuan Wang , Zhihao Fan This is my paper
classification eess.SYcs.SYphysics.med-ph
keywords discreteelementmethodcontactparametercalibrationangleofreposeparticlescalinglivestocksaltresponsesurfacemethodologyrollingfrictioncoefficientrestitution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that three contact parameters of livestock salt granules—the salt-salt rolling friction coefficient, the salt-salt restitution coefficient, and the salt-steel rolling friction coefficient—can be calibrated so that a discrete element method (DEM) simulation, a technique that tracks granular particles individually, reproduces the real material's pile behavior. Since salt grains are small and costly to simulate at true size, the authors double the particle diameter using scaling laws that keep density constant and scale contact stiffness linearly with size. A Plackett-Burman experiment singles out the three parameters that dominate the angle of repose (the angle a poured pile makes with the horizontal), and a Box-Behnken response surface is fit to the measured 45.27° angle. The resulting parameter values—0.23, 0.544, and 0.368—give a simulated pile angle of 45.55°, a 0.6% relative error. That agreement is the paper's evidence that the calibrated parameters can replace physical salt in simulations used to design feeding screws and silos.

What carries the argument

The central object is a scaled spherical-particle model of livestock salt in the EDEM discrete element software, running the standard Hertz-Mindlin no-slip contact model. Four tools carry the argument: the dimensional-analysis scaling laws the paper adopts, which justify doubling the particle diameter while keeping density invariant and making contact stiffness scale linearly with particle radius; Plackett-Burman screening, which cuts the seven candidate contact parameters to the three that significantly change the angle of repose; steepest ascent experiments, which locate the optimal parameter region; and a Box-Behnken quadratic regression (Eq. 28) expressing the predicted angle of repose as a function of those three parameters. Inverting that regression against the physically measured 45.27° angle yields the calibrated triple (0.23, 0.544, 0.368). The angle of repose—a single scalar pile measurement—is what carries the entire calibration and its validation.

What would settle it

Solve the paper's own regression equation (28) for a second parameter triple within the studied ranges that also predicts 45.27°, run the same EDEM stacking test with that triple, and compare with the bench measurement; if it matches within 0.6% again, the values 0.23, 0.544, 0.368 are not uniquely determined by the data. A reader could instead measure a second observable the calibrated parameters must also predict—screw-conveyor discharge rate, a shear-cell yield locus, or the pile angle at a 3× scale factor—and check whether the simulation predicts it without retuning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a complete, bench-verified DEM parameter set for livestock salt. The angle of repose measured on a real salt pile, 45.27°, is reproduced by EDEM simulation, 45.55°, once the three parameters that significantly affect the repose angle are set to salt-salt rolling friction 0.23, salt-salt restitution 0.544, and salt-steel rolling friction 0.368, with the remaining contact parameters fixed by matching bench tests (salt-steel static friction 0.71, salt-steel restitution 0.421, salt-salt static friction 0.85). The authors conclude that the calibrated contact parameters can be used for discrete element simulation of livestock salt, providing a reference for the design of quantitative feeding screws and silos. The load-bearing relationship is the quadratic regression (Eq. 28) mapping the three parameters to the predicted angle of repose; inverting it against the measured angle is what produces the claimed values.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that reproducing one measured quantity—the 45.27° angle of repose, the same quantity later used for validation—uniquely determines three contact parameters at once, and the data never rule out other parameter combinations that would give the same angle.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the calibrated triple (0.23, 0.544, 0.368) and the bench-calibrated secondary parameters, EDEM reproduces the physical pile angle of livestock salt within 0.6%, so the simulated pile and flow behavior can be trusted when designing feeding screws and silos.
  • The Plackett-Burman screening shows that salt-salt rolling friction, salt-salt restitution, and salt-steel rolling friction dominate the angle of repose, so future calibration of similar non-cohesive granules can concentrate on these three factors.
  • The fitted response equation (28) maps the three parameters to the predicted angle of repose directly, giving designers a fast algebraic surrogate for exploring parameter sensitivity without running full DEM simulations.
  • The particle-scaling argument—density invariant, stiffness linear in particle diameter, restitution coefficient recalibrated—supports doubling the salt particle size in simulation, cutting computational cost while preserving the measured static pile behavior.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: because three parameters are pinned to a single measured scalar, the reported triple is almost certainly one member of a larger set of equally good fits; 0.23, 0.544, and 0.368 should be read as a calibrated combination, not as uniquely measured material properties.
  • Beyond the paper: a decisive check would be predicting a second observable the parameters must also determine—such as screw-feeder discharge rate or pile angle at a different scale factor—and testing it without retuning, since the paper validates only on the same angle-of-repose test used for calibration.
  • Beyond the paper: the same screening-plus-response-surface workflow could transfer to other granular agricultural materials, but the underdetermination caveat transfers with it; identifiability would need more measured responses or prior information about the parameters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper calibrates discrete element method (DEM) contact parameters for livestock salt particles. After applying a particle scaling approach, the authors screen seven candidate contact parameters with a Plackett-Burman design using the angle of repose as the response, identify three significant parameters (salt-salt rolling friction, salt-salt restitution, salt-steel rolling friction), calibrate secondary parameters with bench tests (inclined-plane, rebound, direct shear), and then use steepest ascent and a Box-Behnken response surface to choose the three key parameters by matching the measured angle of repose of 45.27 degrees. The final reported values are salt-salt rolling friction 0.23, salt-salt restitution 0.544, and salt-steel rolling friction 0.368, which produce a simulated angle of 45.55 degrees, a relative error of 0.6%. The paper concludes these parameters are suitable for DEM simulations of livestock salt in animal-husbandry equipment design.

Significance. If the calibrated parameter set were uniquely identified and independently validated, the work would provide useful input parameters for DEM simulations supporting the design of salt feeding screws and silos. The paper documents a complete calibration workflow, includes detailed experimental protocols, and reports the response-surface statistics. However, the central claim is undermined by two structural issues: the validation reuses the same observable used for calibration, and the inverse problem of estimating three parameters from a single scalar response is underdetermined. These issues mean the specific numerical values are not established as unique or transferable. The paper also contains internal contradictions in material properties that affect the simulation inputs. The work is therefore a useful case study but does not, in its current form, provide a reliable parameter set for downstream simulation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, §3.2, Eq. (28)] The validation is circular. In Section 3.1 the three key parameters are selected by solving the quadratic regression equation (Eq. 28) with the experimentally measured angle of repose (45.27°) as the target response. Section 3.2 then 'validates' the calibrated parameters by comparing the simulated angle of repose (45.55°) with that same measured value. Because the response surface was fitted to simulation outputs and the optimization target was exactly this measured angle, the resulting 0.6% agreement is a consequence of the fitting procedure, not an independent test of the parameters. An independent validation observable is required, for example a different pile geometry, a flow-rate measurement, or a held-out set of angle-of-repose measurements from a different funnel diameter or discharge height.
  2. [§3.1] The three-parameter inverse problem is underdetermined. The three key parameters are jointly estimated from a single scalar response, the angle of repose. The paper itself states in Section 3.1 that 'response surface analysis yielded multiple sets of optimal parameters,' which directly confirms that the mapping from the response surface to parameters is not one-to-one. No identifiability analysis, profile likelihood, confidence region, or uncertainty propagation is reported. The reported triple (0.23, 0.544, 0.368) is therefore one member of a likely manifold of parameter combinations that produce the same or nearly the same angle of repose. Without additional responses or a formal identifiability study, the claim that these specific values can be transferred to other DEM simulations is not established.
  3. [§1.1 vs. Table 4; §2.1.3] There are critical inconsistencies in the material property inputs. Section 1.1 lists the density of steel as 1210 kg/m³ and its shear modulus as 1900 MPa, while Table 4 uses a stainless-steel density of 7800 kg/m³ and a shear modulus of 8.0×10¹⁰ Pa. The former values are unphysical for steel and would severely alter contact forces if used. Additionally, Section 2.1.3 reports a salt density of 1210 kg/m³, which is roughly half the crystal density of sodium chloride (about 2160 kg/m³); the saturated-brine displacement method described appears to measure a bulk or apparent density rather than the particle density required by DEM. Since particle density enters the mass, inertia, and contact-force calculations, an incorrect density would be compensated for by the fitted friction and restitution coefficients, further reducing the physical meaning of the calibrated values. These values must be corrected or explicitly justified.
  4. [Table 11, Eq. (28), Table 12] The Box-Behnken design as printed is internally inconsistent and prevents reproduction of the regression. Table 11 lists 17 runs, but the five center-point replicates (rows 13–17) are coded as (0, −1, 0) rather than (0, 0, 0), so they are not center points of the three-factor design. In addition, the column headers of Table 12 appear to be misaligned: the first numeric column is labeled 'mean square' but contains values that look like sums of squares, while the 'degrees of freedom' column contains 9, 1, 1, etc. Since Eq. (28) is the foundation for the parameter optimization, these errors make the reported regression model and its ANOVA statistics impossible to verify or reproduce.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.3.3] The text states that the simulation verification for the salt-steel restitution coefficient shows a '1.09% deviation' from the bench result, but the reported values (simulated mean rebound height 22.74 mm vs. measured 20.5 mm) imply a relative deviation of about 10.9%. Please correct the percentage or the values.
  2. [§2.3.2, §2.3.4] The cross-references to equations are incorrect: Section 2.3.2 refers to 'Equation (12)' when the displayed static-friction curve is Eq. (21), and Section 2.3.4 refers to 'Equation (12)' and '(13)' when the yield locus is Eq. (26) and the conversion is Eq. (27). Please renumber or fix the references.
  3. [Table 4] The units in Table 4 are inconsistent: 'Salt density/(kg·m²)' and 'Density of stainless steel/(kg·m²)' should be kg/m³, and 'Shear modulus/Pa of stainless steel/Pa' is redundant. Please correct the unit notation.
  4. [§1.1, Table 4] The Poisson's ratio of stainless steel is given as 0.25 in Section 1.1 but 0.30 in Table 4. Please harmonize the value and indicate which one was actually used in the simulations.
  5. [Table 13] Table 13 is not explicitly identified as simulation results. The text indicates that the simulated average angle is 45.55°, which matches the table's overall mean, but the caption 'Results of Stacking Angle Test' is ambiguous. Please add a caption clarifying that these are EDEM simulation replicates.
  6. [§3.2 and Conclusions] The paper claims 'no significant difference (P>0.05)' between simulated and measured angles of repose, but no statistical test is reported in Section 3.2. Either add the test result or remove the claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The three optimized contact parameters are fit to the measured 45.27° angle of repose, and the 'validation' compares the simulated angle of repose to that same measured value, making the 0.6% agreement a forced consistency check rather than an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1 'Optimal Parameter Determination' and Section 3.2 'Angle of Repose Comparative Validation' (Eq. 28, Table 13)]
    "Using the experimentally measured angle of repose (45.27 °, Table 13) as the target response value, the regression equation was solved through the optimization module of Design-Expert 10.0.7. Response surface analysis yielded multiple sets of optimal parameters, from which the following were ultimately selected: salt -salt rolling friction coefficient of 0.23 ... [Section 3.2:] Five replicate angle of repose tests yielded an average value of 45.27°. The selected optimal parameters were implemented in EDEM for angle of repose simulation ..."

    The parameters 0.23, 0.544, and 0.368 are obtained by solving the Box-Behnken regression equation (Eq. 28) with the measured angle of repose 45.27° as the optimization target. The validation in Section 3.2 then runs EDEM at these exact parameters and compares the simulated angle of repose with the same 45.27° target. Because the parameters were chosen to make the fitted surrogate reproduce that measured angle, a simulated angle close to 45.27° only verifies that the response surface accurately represents EDEM; it is not an independent test of the parameters. The 0.6% agreement is thus forced by construction unless the surrogate badly misrepresents the simulation. Moreover, Eq.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the calibrated triple (salt-salt rolling friction 0.23, salt-salt restitution 0.544, salt-steel rolling friction 0.368) reliably reproduces the measured angle of repose and can therefore be used in DEM simulations. The calibration path is: measure angle of repose 45.27°; screen three significant parameters via Plackett-Burman; calibrate secondary parameters through independent bench tests (inclined-plane sliding, rebound height, direct shear); fit a Box-Behnken response surface (Eq. 28) to simulated angles; then solve for parameters that make Eq. 28 yield 45.27°. The validation in Section 3.2 compares a new EDEM simulation at those parameters against the same 45.27° target. This is the classic 'fitted input called prediction' pattern: the observable used to fit the parameters is the same observable used to claim success. The paper contains no independent observable (e.g., discharge rate, force profile, pile shape) to test the triple. The non-uniqueness is acknowledged in the text ('multiple sets of optimal parameters'), reinforcing that the inverse problem is underdetermined by a single scalar response. The independent bench calibrations of static friction and restitution coefficients are not circular, which is why the overall score is 6 rather than higher. There is no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem; the circularity is confined to the final optimization and its reuse of the repose-angle target.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the particle scaling laws adopted from Feng et al. [11] and Sakai et al. [14], the adequacy of the Hertz-Mindlin contact model, the sufficiency of the repose angle as the calibration observable, and the assumption that non-significant parameters can be fixed independently. The fitted contact parameters themselves are free parameters: six coefficients plus the scaling factor. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Salt-salt rolling friction coefficient = 0.23
    Fitted so that the simulated angle of repose matches the measured 45.27 degrees (Sections 2.3.5, 2.3.6, 3.1).
  • Salt-salt restitution coefficient = 0.544
    Fitted so that the simulated angle of repose matches the measured 45.27 degrees (Sections 2.3.5, 2.3.6, 3.1).
  • Salt-steel rolling friction coefficient = 0.368
    Fitted so that the simulated angle of repose matches the measured 45.27 degrees (Sections 2.3.5, 2.3.6, 3.1).
  • Salt-steel static friction coefficient = 0.71
    Obtained by inverting a quadratic fit to inclined-plane simulations to match the measured tilt angle of 35.82 degrees (Section 2.3.2).
  • Salt-steel restitution coefficient = 0.421
    Obtained by inverting a quadratic fit to rebound-height simulations to match the measured rebound height of 20.5 mm (Section 2.3.3).
  • Salt-salt static friction coefficient = 0.85
    Derived from the direct shear test via the fitted yield locus slope (Section 2.3.4).
  • Particle scaling factor = 2
    Chosen by hand from prior studies [14] to balance computational efficiency and accuracy; the central claim depends on this scaling.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Feng-Owen exact scaling laws: proportional equivalence of all forces (Eq. 2) with length and mass scaled by h and density invariant is sufficient to model the real particle system.
    Section 1.2.1 adopts scaling factor h=2 and assumes unchanged density and velocity; the paper does not verify this assumption for livestock salt flow.
  • domain assumption Hertz-Mindlin no-slip contact model is appropriate for livestock salt particles.
    Section 2.2.1 selects this model without experimental validation of contact mechanics.
  • domain assumption Angle of repose is a sufficient macroscopic response to determine the three significant contact parameters.
    The inverse calibration optimizes only the repose angle; no identifiability analysis shows uniqueness.
  • domain assumption Non-significant Plackett-Burman parameters can be fixed to bench-measured or literature values without changing the repose angle.
    Section 2.3.1 sets them from separate tests; the independence assumption is untested.
  • domain assumption The measured bench values (repose angle 45.27 degrees, sliding angle 35.82 degrees, rebound height 20.5 mm, internal friction slope 0.845) are accurate.
    The entire calibration and validation depends on these physical measurements, which cannot be independently checked from the manuscript.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discrete Element Parameter Calibration of Livestock Salt Based on Particle Scaling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UZXWIIO2

@misc{pith2026250603786,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discrete Element Parameter Calibration of Livestock Salt Based on Particle Scaling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UZXWIIO2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03786}
}
read the original abstract

In order to obtain accurate contact parameters for the discrete element simulation of salt particles used in animal husbandry, the principle of particle contact scaling and dimensional analysis were used for particle scaling. Firstly, the Plackett Burman experiment was used to screen the parameters that significantly affect the angle of repose: salt salt rolling friction coefficient, salt salt recovery coefficient, and salt steel rolling friction coefficient. Considering the influence of other parameters, a combination of bench and simulation experiments was used to calibrate the contact parameters between salt particles and steel plates used in animal husbandry in EDEM. Finally, through the stacking test, steepest climbing test, and orthogonal rotation combination test, the salt salt rolling friction coefficient was obtained to be 0.23, the salt salt recovery coefficient was 0.544, and the salt steel rolling friction coefficient was 0.368, which were verified through bench tests. The experimental results show that the relative error between the actual value of the stacking angle and the simulation results is 0.6%. The results indicate that the calibrated contact parameters can be used for discrete element simulation of salt particles for animal husbandry, providing reference for the design of quantitative feeding screws and silos.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gongcheng and G

    T. Gongcheng and G. Yanli, Analysis of the impact of mineral element intake on the health of livestock and poultry, Modern Animal Husbandry Science & Technology (2024), no. 03, 140-143.http://doi.org/10.19369/j.cnki.2095-9737.2024.03.039

    work page arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    low-high

    （12） In the formula * is a dimensionless number，δn is the overlap，m；tis time，s；v0 is velocity， m/s。 By substituting into equation (10), we can obtain 4𝜋𝑅𝑖 2𝜌𝛽3𝑣0 2 3(1 + 𝛽3) 𝛿𝑛 ′′∗ = 𝑘𝑛𝑅𝑖𝛿𝑛 ∗ + 𝑐𝑛𝑣0𝛿𝑛 ′∗ （13） In the formula, k n represents the particle stiffness, N/m ； cn is the damping coefficient, kg/s 。 Simplify to obtain 4𝜋𝛽3 3(1 + 𝛽3) 𝛿𝑛 ′′∗ = 𝑘𝑛𝛿𝑛 ∗...

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    G. S. W. P. Y . Jun, Discrete element based calibration and test of simulation parameters for fish feed , Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University 41 (2022), no. 06, 286-295.http://doi.org/10.13300/j.cnki.hnlkxb.2022.06.034

    work page doi:10.13300/j.cnki.hnlkxb.2022.06.034 2022

  4. [4]

    [5] established a DEM model for sand particles by comparing physical and simulated experiments, laying a foundation for mechanical sand removal studies

    determined contact models and parameters for non -cohesive soils through angle of repose and penetration tests, effectively simulating soil tillage processes.Yang She et al. [5] established a DEM model for sand particles by comparing physical and simulated experiments, laying a foundation for mechanical sand removal studies. Soltanbeigi et al [6] simulate...

    work page 1900

  5. [5]

    J. X. Zhang, Z. J. Chang, F. S. Niu, Y . Y . Chen, J. H. Wu and H. M. Zhang, Simulation and validation of discrete element parameter calibration for fine -grained iron tailings, MINERALS 13 (2023), no. 1.http://doi.org/10.3390/min13010058

    work page doi:10.3390/min13010058 2023

  6. [6]

    Y . Song, J. Xu, S. Zhang, J. Xing, L. Wang, X. Wang, C. Hu and W. Li, Modeling of sand-cultivated substrate for gobi facility agriculture and validation of trenching test , SCIENTIFIC REPORTS 15 (2025), no. 1.http://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-93909-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-025-93909-2 2025

  7. [7]

    Y . S. Z. M. W. Wenjiang, Calibration of physical characteristics of wind sand particles based ondiscrete element method, Journal of Shijiazhuang Tiedao University 34 (2021), no. 01, 49-57.http://doi.org/10.13319/j.cnki.sjztddxxbzrb.20190187

    work page doi:10.13319/j.cnki.sjztddxxbzrb.20190187 2021

  8. [8]

    Soltanbeigi, A

    B. Soltanbeigi, A. Podlozhnyuk, C. Kloss, S. Pirker, J. Y . Ooi and S. -A. Papanicolopulos, Influence of various dem shape representation methods on packing and shearing of granular assemblies , GRANULAR MATTER 23 (2021), no. 2.http://doi.org/10.1007/s10035-020-01078-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s10035-020-01078-y 2021

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    H. W. W. S. Z. Qian, Discrete element parameter calibration of micron sized powder particlesbased on jkｒ contact model, Chinese Powder Technology 27 (2021), no. 06, 60-69.http://doi.org/10.13732/j.issn.1008-5548.2021.06.007

    2021

  2. [10]

    X. X. Sun, W. J. Meng and Y . Yuan, Feeding head of relative rotary based on edem plus fluent , ADV ANCES IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING 10 (2018), no. 7.http://doi.org/10.1177/1687814018784829

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Z. L. Ren Jianli, Han Long, Discretesimulation of vertical screw conveyor based on particle scaling theory , Chinese Journal of Process Engineering 17 (2017), no. 05, 936-943.http://doi.org/10.12034/j.issn.1009-606X.217109

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    Weinhart, C

    T. Weinhart, C. Labra, S. Luding and J. Y . Ooi, Influence of coarse -graining parameters on the analysis of dem simulations of silo flow , POWDER TECHNOLOGY 293 (2016), 138-148.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2015.11.052

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Y . T. Feng and D. R. J. Owen, Discrete element modelling of large scale particle systems-i: Exact scaling laws , COMPUTATIONAL PARTICLE MECHANICS 1 (2014), no. 2, 159-168.http://doi.org/10.1007/s40571-014-0010-y

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    S. Radl, C. Radeke, J. G. Khinast and S. Sundaresan, Parcel-based approach for the simulation of gas -particle flows , 8th international conference on CFD in oil & gas, metallurgical and process industries, trondheim, 2011, p.^pp. 1084-1098

    2011

  7. [15]

    W. Zhan, L. Shengkai and Q. Qi, Analysis of particle motion characteristics of seed cotton based on fluent edem coupled simulation , value engineering 44 (2025), no. 11, 9-11.http://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-4311.2025.11.003

    2025

  8. [16]

    Sakai, M

    M. Sakai, M. Abe, Y . Shigeto, S. Mizutani, H. Takahashi, A. Viré, J. R. Percival, J. S. Xiang and C. C. Pain, Verification and validation of a coarse grain model of the dem in a bubbling fluidized bed , CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL 244 (2014), 33-43.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.c...

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    P. Fei, W. Hongying, F. Fang and L. Yude, Calibration of discrete element model parameters for pellet feedbased on injected section method , Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery 49 (2018), no. 04, 140-147.http://doi.org/10.6041/j.issn.1000-1298.2018.04.016

    2018

  10. [18]

    X. W. He Yiming, Wu Mingliang, Parameters calibration of loam soil for discrete element simulation based on the repose angle of particle heap , Journal of Hunan Agricultural University:Natural Science Edition 44 (2018), no. 02, 216-220.http://doi.org/10.13331/j.cnki.jhau.2018.02.019

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    H. Y . Zhang Rui, Ji Qiaoli, Calibration methods of sandy soil parameters in simulation of discrete element method , Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery 48 (2017), no. 03, 49-56.http://doi.org/10.6041/j.issn.1000-1298.2017.03.006

    2017

  12. [20]

    L. W. W. Zhankui, Trajectory simulation and testing of chiton sieve screens , MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY 54 (2025), no. 08, 130-134.http://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-9492.2025.08.024

    2025

  13. [21]

    Z. Y . Ben, X. Sun, Y . Bai, D. X. Yang, K. J. Chen and Y . Dong, Parameter calibration of discrete element model for gluten densification molding , JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE 89 (2024), no. 6, 3700-3712.http://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.17099

    2024

  14. [22]

    Z. Y . Ben, X. Sun, R. Zhu, X. B. Zhang, Y . Bai, D. X. Yang, K. J. Chen and Y . Dong, Measurement and calibration of gluten pellets discrete element parameters at varied moisture content , JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE 89 (2024), no. 3, 1616-1631.http://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.16936

    2024

  15. [23]

    L. T. Chen, R. Chen, X. W. Mou, Z. X. Liu, X. Ma, X. F. Wu and X. W. Deng, Calibration of discrete meta-parameters of bamboo flour based on magnitude analysis and bp neural network , PLOS ONE 19 (2024), no. 10.http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308019

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Tienan, H

    Z. Tienan, H. Zhou, J. T. Ji, F. Y . Sun and Z. Y . Qin, Parameter calibration of the discrete element simulation model for soaking paddy loam soil based on the slump test, PLOS ONE 18 (2023), no. 6.http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285428

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    S. S. Wang, M. Q. Lu, X. Y . Liu, J. T. Ji and P. Chen, Calibration and analysis of discrete element simulation parameters of chinese cabbage seeds , PLOS ONE 17 (2022), no. 6.http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270415

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    S. Z. Zhang Shuai, Zhang Jie, Simulation of self -hardening resin sand mobility based on dem , Foundry Technology 37 (2016), no. 02, 288-291.http://doi.org/10.16410/j.issn1000-8365.2016.02.025

    2016

  19. [27]

    Z. X. H. X. L. Junxiao, Calibration and verification of bonding parameters of banana straw simulation model based on discrete element method, Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery 54 (2023), no. 05, 121-130.http://doi.org/10.6041/j.issn.1000-1298.2023.05.012

    2023

  20. [28]

    Gonzalez-Montellano, J

    C. Gonzalez-Montellano, J. M. Fuentes, E. Ayuga -Tellez and F. Ayuga, Determination of the mechanical properties of maize grains and olives required for use in dem simulations, JOURNAL OF FOOD ENGINEERING 111 (2012), no. 4, 553-562.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2012.03.017

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    L. H.-y. SHI Zheng-guang, GE Hui, CHEN Xiang -yu, Shi zheng-guang, li hua -ying*, ge hui, chen xiang -yu, Journal of Shandong Agricultural University 55 (2024), no. 02, 228-237.http://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-2324.2024.02.012

    2024

  22. [30]

    Z. Ｒ. Z. J. L. Hu, Determination of interspecific contact parameters of corn and simulation calibration of discrete element , Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery 53 (2022), no. S1, 69-77.http://doi.org/10.6041/j.issn.1000-1298.2022.S1.008

    2022

  23. [31]

    M. Li, X. W. He, G. S. Zhu, J. X. Liu, K. C. Gou and X. F. Wang, Modeling and parameter calibration of morchella seed based on discrete element method , APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL 14 (2024), no. 23.http://doi.org/10.3390/app142311134

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Z. W. Shi Linwei, Sun Wei, Parameter calibration of soil particles contact model of farmland soil in northwest arid region based on discrete element method , Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering 35 (2019), no. 16, 320-327.http://doi.org/10.11975/j.is...

    2019

  25. [33]

    Y . Wan, B. Zhang, Q. Lai, Y . Gong, Q. Yu and X. Chen, Determination of melon seed physical parameters and calibration of discrete element simulation parameters , PLOS ONE 19 (2024), no. 7.http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300516

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Y . Wang, G. Lin, X. Liu, L. Zhao, B. Jia, Y . Wang and J. He, Research on coal rock parameter calibration based on discrete element method , SCIENTIFIC REPORTS 14 (2024), no. 1.http://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-77538-9

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    X. Y . Zhang, R. Wang, B. A. Wang, J. Chen and X. G. Wang, Parameter calibration of discrete element model of wine lees particles , APPLIED SCIENCES -BASEL 14 (2024), no. 12.http://doi.org/10.3390/app14125281

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.