%0 Journal Article
%T Determination of melon seed physical parameters and calibration of discrete element simulation parameters.
%A Wan Y
%A Zhang B
%A Lai Q
%A Gong Y
%A Qingxu Y
%A Chen X
%J PLoS One
%V 19
%N 7
%D 2024
%M 39008493
%F 3.752
%R 10.1371/journal.pone.0300516
%X To improve the accuracy of the Hami melon discrete element model, the parameters of the Hami melon seed discrete element model were calibrated by combining practical experiments and simulation tests. The basic physical parameters of Hami melon seeds were obtained through physical experiments, including triaxial size, 100-grain mass, moisture content, density, Poisson's ratio, Young's modulus, shear modulus, angle of repose, suspension speed and various contact parameters. Taking the repose angle of seed simulation as an index, the parameters of each simulation model were significantly screened by the Plackett-Burman test. The results showed that the recovery coefficient, static friction coefficient and rolling friction coefficient of Hami melon seeds had significant effects on repose angle. Based on the steepest climbing test and quadratic regression orthogonal rotation combination test, it was determined that the significant order of the influence of various contact parameters on the angle of repose was static friction coefficient, collision recovery coefficient, and rolling friction coefficient. The optimal parameter combination was obtained through the mathematical regression model between the angle of repose and various contact parameters, namely, the collision recovery coefficient of Hami melon seeds was 0.518, the static friction coefficient of Hami melon seeds was 0.585 and the rolling friction coefficient of Hami melon seeds was 0.337. Under this condition, three static seed-dropping experiments and dynamic rolling accumulation experiments were carried out. The average simulated angle of repose was 31.93°, and the relative error with the actual value was only 1.71%. The average simulated rolling accumulation angle was 51.98°, and the relative error with the actual value was only 1.92%.