Systematic analysis identifies effective contact models for soil tillage simulations, indicating improvements in accuracy.
The discrete element method (DEM), based on particle dynamics, is used to simulate the technological process of soil tillage using agricultural machinery. A key aspect of the DEM for obtaining accurate agrotechnical and energy indicators of soil cultivation is the formulation of particle contact rules, determined by normal and tangential interactions as well as cohesion forces. This study presents a comprehensive analysis of discrete element method (DEM) contact models used to simulate soil cultivation processes. This study addresses a key issue—the absence of a systematic approach to selecting adequate contact models, which limits the accuracy of predicting soil behavior during interaction with agricultural machinery. A detailed classification of 17 combinations of contact models implemented in the commercial software Rocky DEM was performed, grouped into three categories: normal force models (Linear Spring [LSP], Hysteresis [HLS], Hertzian [HSD]), tangential force models (Coulomb, linear spring limit [linear], Mindlin–Deresiewicz), and cohesive force models (linear cohesion [linear], constant force [constant], Johnson–Kendall–Roberts [JKR]). Experimental validation was conducted by analyzing the angle of repose for various soil types (sandy loam, light loam, medium loam, and heavy clay) with moisture contents ranging from 11 to 31%. This analysis identified the nine most effective combinations of contact models to describe normal, tangential, and cohesive forces (LSP–Coulomb–linear, HLS–linear–linear, HLS–Coulomb–linear, HSD–linear–linear, HSD–linear–JKR, HSD–Coulomb–linear, HSD–Coulomb–JKR, HSD–Mindlin–Deresiewicz–linear, HSD–Mindlin–Deresiewicz–JKR), which showed reliable agreement with experimental angle of repose measurements at approximately 85% accuracy. This study significantly contributes to advancing computer modeling methods in agriculture by providing a scientifically grounded approach for selecting DEM contact models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Мударисов et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: