浙江农业学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (8): 1683-1694.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20250458
汪浩远1(
), 许燕1,2,*(
), 周建平1,2, 李先康1, 左佳伟1, 徐翔1
收稿日期:2025-06-24
出版日期:2026-08-25
发布日期:2026-09-14
作者简介:汪浩远,研究方向为农业机器人与智能装备。E-mail:382456442@qq.com
通讯作者:
*许燕,E-mail:lilixiu_z@163.com
基金资助:
WANG Haoyuan1(
), XU Yan1,2,*(
), ZHOU Jianping1,2, LI Xiankang1, ZUO Jiawei1, XU Xiang1
Received:2025-06-24
Published:2026-08-25
Online:2026-09-14
摘要:
为获得准确的新疆地区红花田土壤离散元仿真参数,构建适用于不同含水率红花田土壤的仿真模型,采用物理试验与仿真试验相结合的方法,分别配置含水率为10%、15%、20%、25%、30%的土壤样本,以堆积角为响应值,对土壤参数进行标定研究。首先,利用漏斗法建立含水率-堆积角模型,获取堆积角与含水率的数学关系。然后,基于Hertz-Mindlin with JKR离散元接触模型,设计Plackett-Burman试验,对9个初始参数进行筛选,发现土壤剪切模量、土壤-土壤静摩擦系数、土壤-土壤滚动摩擦系数和JKR表面能对堆积角影响显著(p<0.05)。接着,利用最陡爬坡试验缩小关键参数的取值范围,基于Box-Behnken试验建立堆积角-离散元参数回归模型,并对回归模型进行参数寻优。选取7种不同含水率的土壤进行参数寻优,然后对比仿真模型与物理试验的结果,发现其相对误差小于5%,可用于后续试验。对比承压物理试验与离散元仿真的入土阻力数据,结果显示,二者变化规律一致:在0~50 mm深度范围内,相对误差低于10%;当深度超过50 mm时,误差增大。上述结果表明,本研究构建的模型在浅层土壤力学行为模拟中具备有效替代真实土壤的可行性。研究结果可为后续农业装备优化触土部件、提升田间通过性提供数据基础和技术支持。
中图分类号:
汪浩远, 许燕, 周建平, 李先康, 左佳伟, 徐翔. 基于离散元法的新疆地区红花田土壤参数标定[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(8): 1683-1694.
WANG Haoyuan, XU Yan, ZHOU Jianping, LI Xiankang, ZUO Jiawei, XU Xiang. Calibration of soil parameters for safflower fields in Xinjiang, China, based on discrete element method[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2026, 38(8): 1683-1694.
| 含水率/% Moisture content/% | 泊松比 Poisson’s ratio | 弹性模量/MPa Elastic modulus/MPa |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | 0.35 | 5.31 |
| 15 | 0.35 | 4.21 |
| 20 | 0.36 | 3.88 |
| 25 | 0.38 | 3.54 |
| 30 | 0.40 | 3.22 |
表1 不同土壤样品的泊松比和弹性模量
Table 1 Poisson’s ratio and elastic modulus of soil samples
| 含水率/% Moisture content/% | 泊松比 Poisson’s ratio | 弹性模量/MPa Elastic modulus/MPa |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | 0.35 | 5.31 |
| 15 | 0.35 | 4.21 |
| 20 | 0.36 | 3.88 |
| 25 | 0.38 | 3.54 |
| 30 | 0.40 | 3.22 |
图1 堆积角测量的试验台结构 1,支撑架;2,漏斗;3,水平角度仪;4,接料板;5,高速摄像头。
Fig.1 Structure of test bench for repose angle measurement 1, Supporting frame; 2, Funnel; 3, Horizontal angle gauge; 4, Receiving plate; 5, High speed camera.
| 序号 No. | 各因素试验水平Experimental levels of each factor | α/(°) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | ||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 35.43 |
| 2 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 29.57 |
| 3 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 38.59 |
| 4 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 48.02 |
| 5 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 38.86 |
| 6 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 44.01 |
| 7 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 21.55 |
| 8 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 35.43 |
| 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 40.59 |
| 10 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 47.21 |
| 11 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 46.03 |
| 12 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 23.57 |
表2 Plackett-Burman试验方案与结果
Table 2 Plackett-Burman design and experimental results
| 序号 No. | 各因素试验水平Experimental levels of each factor | α/(°) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | ||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 35.43 |
| 2 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 29.57 |
| 3 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 38.59 |
| 4 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 48.02 |
| 5 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 38.86 |
| 6 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 44.01 |
| 7 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 21.55 |
| 8 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 35.43 |
| 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 40.59 |
| 10 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 47.21 |
| 11 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 46.03 |
| 12 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 23.57 |
| 编号 No. | 各因素设定值Assigned values of each factor | α/(°) | 相对误差/% Relative error/% | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B/Mpa | C | D | I/(J·m-2) | |||
| 1 | 0.800 | 0.200 | 0.04 | 0.100 | 28.21 | 21.42 |
| 2 | 1.003 | 0.318 | 0.17 | 0.223 | 32.44 | 9.64 |
| 3 | 1.206 | 0.436 | 0.30 | 0.346 | 35.02 | 2.45 |
| 4 | 1.409 | 0.554 | 0.43 | 0.469 | 38.28 | 6.63 |
| 5 | 1.612 | 0.672 | 0.56 | 0.592 | 42.22 | 17.60 |
| 6 | 1.815 | 0.790 | 0.69 | 0.715 | 44.98 | 25.29 |
表3 最陡爬坡试验设计与结果
Table 3 Steepest ascent design and experimental results
| 编号 No. | 各因素设定值Assigned values of each factor | α/(°) | 相对误差/% Relative error/% | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B/Mpa | C | D | I/(J·m-2) | |||
| 1 | 0.800 | 0.200 | 0.04 | 0.100 | 28.21 | 21.42 |
| 2 | 1.003 | 0.318 | 0.17 | 0.223 | 32.44 | 9.64 |
| 3 | 1.206 | 0.436 | 0.30 | 0.346 | 35.02 | 2.45 |
| 4 | 1.409 | 0.554 | 0.43 | 0.469 | 38.28 | 6.63 |
| 5 | 1.612 | 0.672 | 0.56 | 0.592 | 42.22 | 17.60 |
| 6 | 1.815 | 0.790 | 0.69 | 0.715 | 44.98 | 25.29 |
| 序号 No. | 各因素的设定水平Setting level for each factor | α/(°) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | C | D | I | ||
| 1 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 36.43 |
| 2 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 38.74 |
| 3 | -1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 38.63 |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 40.32 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 32.32 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 41.45 |
| 7 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 37.72 |
| 8 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 41.78 |
| 9 | -1 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 36.79 |
| 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 38.78 |
| 11 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 38.25 |
| 12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 40.02 |
| 13 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 36.48 |
| 14 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 37.36 |
| 15 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 0 | 41.98 |
| 16 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 42.13 |
| 17 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 37.42 |
| 18 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 39.28 |
| 19 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 40.84 |
| 20 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 42.39 |
| 21 | 0 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 37.81 |
| 22 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 38.68 |
| 23 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 39.08 |
| 24 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 40.43 |
| 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 34.86 |
| 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 35.52 |
表4 Box-Behnken试验设计与结果
Table 4 Box-Behnken design and results
| 序号 No. | 各因素的设定水平Setting level for each factor | α/(°) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | C | D | I | ||
| 1 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 36.43 |
| 2 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 38.74 |
| 3 | -1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 38.63 |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 40.32 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 32.32 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 41.45 |
| 7 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 37.72 |
| 8 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 41.78 |
| 9 | -1 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 36.79 |
| 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 38.78 |
| 11 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 38.25 |
| 12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 40.02 |
| 13 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 36.48 |
| 14 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 37.36 |
| 15 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 0 | 41.98 |
| 16 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 42.13 |
| 17 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 37.42 |
| 18 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 39.28 |
| 19 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 40.84 |
| 20 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 42.39 |
| 21 | 0 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 37.81 |
| 22 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 38.68 |
| 23 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 39.08 |
| 24 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 40.43 |
| 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 34.86 |
| 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 35.52 |
图4 不同因素交互作用对堆积角的影响 B,土壤剪切模量;C,土壤-土壤静摩擦系数;D,土壤-土壤滚动摩擦系数;I,土壤JKR表面能;α,堆积角。下同。
Fig.4 Interaction effects of factors on repose angle B, Shear modulus of soil; C, Soil-soil static friction coefficient; D, Soil-soil rolling friction coefficient; I, Soil JKR surface energy; α, Repose angle. The same as below.
| 含水率/% Moisture content/% | B/MPa | C | D | I/(J·m-2) | 实测值/(°) Measured results/(°) | 仿真值/(°) Simulation results/(°) | 相对误差/% Relative error/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 1.150 | 0.415 | 0.219 | 0.281 | 32.20 | 33.03 | 2.58 |
| 15 | 1.126 | 0.458 | 0.227 | 0.236 | 33.40 | 34.65 | 3.74 |
| 20 | 1.327 | 0.463 | 0.197 | 0.242 | 35.90 | 36.42 | 1.45 |
| 25 | 1.371 | 0.542 | 0.266 | 0.351 | 37.18 | 38.01 | 2.24 |
| 30 | 1.151 | 0.545 | 0.340 | 0.461 | 40.10 | 41.41 | 3.27 |
表5 不同含水率的土壤堆积角仿真试验与物理试验结果的相对误差
Table 5 The simulation experiment results of soil repose angle with five soil moisture contents and the relative errors compared with the physical experiments
| 含水率/% Moisture content/% | B/MPa | C | D | I/(J·m-2) | 实测值/(°) Measured results/(°) | 仿真值/(°) Simulation results/(°) | 相对误差/% Relative error/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 1.150 | 0.415 | 0.219 | 0.281 | 32.20 | 33.03 | 2.58 |
| 15 | 1.126 | 0.458 | 0.227 | 0.236 | 33.40 | 34.65 | 3.74 |
| 20 | 1.327 | 0.463 | 0.197 | 0.242 | 35.90 | 36.42 | 1.45 |
| 25 | 1.371 | 0.542 | 0.266 | 0.351 | 37.18 | 38.01 | 2.24 |
| 30 | 1.151 | 0.545 | 0.340 | 0.461 | 40.10 | 41.41 | 3.27 |
| [1] | 路昊, 郭辉, 高国民, 等. 红花采摘机器人移动平台设计与分析[J]. 中国农机化学报, 2024, 45(6): 242-249. |
| Lu H, Guo H, Gao G M, et al. Design and analysis of mobile platform for safflower picking robot[J]. Journal of Chinese Agricultural Mechanization, 2024, 45(6): 242-249. | |
| [2] | 周远航, 郭建富, 马小龙, 等. 新疆红花生产现状及发展对策研究[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2021, 49(19): 199-201. |
| Zhou Y H, Guo J F, Ma X L, et al. Research on current situation and development countermeasures of Xinjiang safflower production[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 49(19): 199-201. | |
| [3] | 孟景怡. 新疆红花产量与水分利用效率对旱地坡位与灌溉的响应[D]. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆农业大学, 2023. |
| Meng J Y. Responses of safflower yield and water use efficiency to dryland slope position and irrigation in Xinjiang[D]. Urumqi: Xinjiang Agricultural University, 2023. | |
| [4] | 孙兆强. 膜下滴灌技术在中西部地区农田灌溉中的运用研究[J]. 黑龙江水利科技, 2020(4): 158-160. |
| Sun Z Q. Study on the application of drip irrigation technology under film in farmland irrigation in central and western regions[J]. Heilongjiang Hydraulic Science and Technology, 2020(4): 158-160. | |
| [5] | 袁浩, 李政, 付天昊, 等. 白芹螺旋壅土装置参数设计与优化[J]. 中国农机化学报, 2024, 45(12): 60-65. |
| Yuan H, Li Z, Fu T H, et al. Parameter design and optimization of white celery screw congestion device[J]. Journal of Chinese Agricultural Mechanization, 2024, 45(12): 60-65. | |
| [6] | 陈元博, 葛云, 梁丹丹, 等. 对辊式红花采收实验台的设计与研究[J]. 农机化研究, 2017, 39(10): 38-41. |
| Chen Y B, Ge Y, Liang D D, et al. Design and research of the roller type safflower harvest test bed[J]. Journal of Agricultural Mechanization Research, 2017, 39(10): 38-41. | |
| [7] | 李俊伟, 佟金, 胡斌, 等. 不同含水率黏重黑土与触土部件互作的离散元仿真参数标定[J]. 农业工程学报, 2019, 35(6): 130-140. |
| Li J W, Tong J, Hu B, et al. Calibration of parameters of interaction between clayey black soil with different moisture content and soil-engaging component in Northeast China[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2019, 35(6): 130-140. | |
| [8] | 韩佃雷, 胡锦瑞, 刘海瑞, 等. 含水沙土颗粒离散元接触模型参数标定及试验[J]. 农业工程学报, 2025, 41(8): 70-78. |
| Han D L, Hu J R, Liu H R, et al. Parameter calibration and experiment of the discrete element contact model of water-containing sandy soil particles[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2025, 41(8): 70-78. | |
| [9] | 朱新华, 伏胜康, 李旭东, 等. 不同含水率羊粪离散元参数通用标定方法研究[J]. 农业机械学报, 2022, 53(8): 34-41. |
| Zhu X H, Fu S K, Li X D, et al. General method for discrete element parameters calibration of goat manure with different moisture contents[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2022, 53(8): 34-41. | |
| [10] | 黄元昊, 全腊珍, 胡广发, 等. 多种材料与不同含水率土壤的离散元接触参数标定[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(3): 98-109. |
| Huang Y H, Quan L Z, Hu G F, et al. Calibration of discrete element contact parameters for various materials and soils with different moisture content[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(3): 98-109. | |
| [11] | 刘明勇, 胡成龙, 谢柏林. 基于离散元法的铧式犁仿真优化分析及试验[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(11): 2542-2552. |
| Liu M Y, Hu C L, Xie B L. Simulation and optimization analysis and experiment of split plough based on discrete element method[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(11): 2542-2552. | |
| [12] | 石林榕, 赵武云, 孙伟. 基于离散元的西北旱区农田土壤颗粒接触模型和参数标定[J]. 农业工程学报, 2017, 33(21): 181-187. |
| Shi L R, Zhao W Y, Sun W. Parameter calibration of soil particles contact model of farmland soil in northwest arid region based on discrete element method[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2017, 33(21): 181-187. | |
| [13] | 任宁, 俞国红, 郑航, 等. 基于离散元法的茶园土壤参数标定[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(6): 1353-1359. |
| Ren N, Yu G H, Zheng H, et al. Parameter calibration of tea garden soil based on discrete element method[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2025, 37(6): 1353-1359. | |
| [14] | 叶大鹏, 林志强, 青家兴, 等. 典型含水率下菌草土壤: 移栽触土部件离散元参数标定[J]. 中国农机化学报, 2025, 46(2): 279-286. |
| Ye D P, Lin Z Q, Qing J X, et al. Discrete element parameter calibration of soil-transplanting soil-touching parts of fungus under typical moisture content[J]. Journal of Chinese Agricultural Mechanization, 2025, 46(2): 279-286. | |
| [15] | 彭才望, 周婷, 孙松林, 等. 基于堆积试验的黑水虻离散元仿真参数标定与分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(4): 814-823. |
| Peng C W, Zhou T, Sun S L, et al. Calibration of parameters of black soldier fly in discrete method simulation based on response angle of particle heap[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(4): 814-823. | |
| [16] | 果霖, 方启明, 李明飞, 等. 滇中地区坡耕地红黏土离散元仿真模型参数标定与试验[J]. 农业机械学报, 2024, 55(9): 185-193. |
| Guo L, Fang Q M, Li M F, et al. Parameter calibration for discrete element simulation of red clay soils in sloping cropland in central Yunnan[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2024, 55(9): 185-193. | |
| [17] | 赵亚君. 轮胎-土壤相互作用研究平台设计与试验[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2022. |
| Zhao Y J. Design and experiment of tire-soil interaction research platform[D]. Yangling: Northwest A & F University, 2022. | |
| [18] | 张锐, 韩佃雷, 吉巧丽, 等. 离散元模拟中沙土参数标定方法研究[J]. 农业机械学报, 2017, 48(3): 49-56. |
| Zhang R, Han D L, Ji Q L, et al. Calibration methods of sandy soil parameters in simulation of discrete element method[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2017, 48(3): 49-56. | |
| [19] | 黄玉祥, 杭程光, 苑梦婵, 等. 深松土壤扰动行为的离散元仿真与试验[J]. 农业机械学报, 2016, 47(7): 80-88. |
| Huang Y X, Hang C G, Yuan M C, et al. Discrete element simulation and experiment on disturbance behavior of subsoiling[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2016, 47(7): 80-88. | |
| [20] | Zhao Y J, Hou Y F, Li X, et al. Parameter calibration for the discrete element simulation of tire-soil interaction[J]. INMATEH Agricultural Engineering, 2023: 693-702. |
| [21] | 李永祥, 李飞翔, 徐雪萌, 等. 基于颗粒缩放的小麦粉离散元参数标定[J]. 农业工程学报, 2019, 35(16): 320-327. |
| Li Y X, Li F X, Xu X M, et al. Parameter calibration of wheat flour for discrete element method simulation based on particle scaling[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2019, 35(16): 320-327. | |
| [22] | 王清泽, 杨梅, 向金田, 等. 基于颗粒缩放理论的沙棘茶毫离散元参数标定[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2024, 42(2): 284-292. |
| Wang Q Z, Yang M, Xiang J T, et al. Discrete element parameters calibration of Hippophae rhamnoides based on particle scaling theory[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2024, 42(2): 284-292. | |
| [23] | 张超, 崔履钰, 石涛, 等. 基于离散元法的长江中游地区水田壤土参数标定[J]. 农机化研究, 2025, 47(7): 35-43. |
| Zhang C, Cui L Y, Shi T, et al. Parameter calibration of paddy loam in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River based on discrete element method[J]. Journal of Agricultural Mechanization Research, 2025, 47(7): 35-43. | |
| [24] | 郑文鑫, 刘昊, 陈献勇, 等. 福建烟区不同含水率红壤离散元参数标定[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2024, 55(3): 323-333. |
| Zheng W X, Liu H, Chen X Y, et al. Discrete element parameter calibration for red soil with different moisture contents in Fujian tobacco-growing areas[J]. Journal of Shenyang Agricultural University, 2024, 55(3): 323-333. | |
| [25] | 熊厚全, 江洁. 黄色赤红壤与开沟部件互作的离散元参数标定及试验[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(6): 1400-1412. |
| Xiong H Q, Jiang J. Discrete element parameter calibration and testing of interaction between yellow lateritic red soil and trenching components[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2024, 36(6): 1400-1412. | |
| [26] | 郭凌云, 赵美卿, 高有山, 等. 旋耕后农田模型离散元参数标定[J]. 中国农机化学报, 2024, 45(8): 296-301. |
| Guo L Y, Zhao M Q, Gao Y S, et al. Calibration of discrete element parameters of farmland model after rotary tillage[J]. Journal of Chinese Agricultural Mechanization, 2024, 45(8): 296-301. |
| [1] | 史荣旭, 宋学锋, 张锋伟, 戴飞. 基于离散元法的玉米秸秆双层柔性模型参数标定与试验[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(7): 1471-1480. |
| [2] | 任宁, 俞国红, 郑航, 陈志东. 基于离散元法的茶园土壤参数标定[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(6): 1353-1359. |
| [3] | 杨锦皓, 江洁, 刘行, 李福强. 基于离散元法的水稻种子参数标定与旱作排种仿真[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(11): 2376-2386. |
| [4] | 熊厚全, 江洁. 黄色赤红壤与开沟部件互作的离散元参数标定及试验[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(6): 1400-1412. |
| [5] | 孔德, 叶自然, 谭向峰, 代梦迪, 赵先亮, 孔德栋. 生菜种子物理接触参数测定与离散元仿真标定[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(4): 932-942. |
| [6] | 彭才望, 周婷, 孙松林, 谢烨林, 魏源. 基于堆积试验的黑水虻离散元仿真参数标定与分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(4): 814-823. |
| [7] | 王锋, 张锋伟, 戴飞, 张陆海, 赵伟, 杨小平. 双层平筛式半夏收获机设计与试验[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(10): 1946-1955. |
| [8] | 李为宁, 柏宣丙, 李兵. 滚筒式茶叶提香机结构参数优化[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(2): 348-358. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||