agriculture
Article
Parameter Calibration of Discrete Element Model for
Cotton Rootstalk–Soil Mixture at Harvest Stage in Xinjiang
Cotton Field
Deli Jiang 1 , Xuegeng Chen 1,2 , Limin Yan 1,2, *, Haixiao Gou 1,2 , Jiacheng Yang 1 and Ying Li 1
Citation: Jiang, D.; Chen, X.; Yan, L.;
Gou, H.; Yang, J.; Li, Y. Parameter
Calibration of Discrete Element
Model for Cotton Rootstalk–Soil
Mixture at Harvest Stage in Xinjiang
Cotton Field. Agriculture 2023, 13,
1344. https://doi.org/10.3390/
agriculture13071344
Academic Editor: Jin He
Received: 30 May 2023
Revised: 27 June 2023
Accepted: 29 June 2023
Published: 3 July 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Agriculture 2023, 13, 1344. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13071344
1 College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China;
jiangdeli@stu.shzu.edu.cn (D.J.); chenxg130@sina.com (X.C.); gouhaixiao@shzu.edu.cn (H.G.);
18340890886@163.com (J.Y.); liying@stu.shzu.edu.cn (Y.L.)
2 Key Laboratory of Northwest Agricultural Equipment, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs,
Shihezi 832000, China
* Correspondence: yanlm@shzu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-139-997-38700
Abstract: Due to the lack of accurate discrete element simulation model parameters in the design
optimization process of key agricultural machinery components in the whole mechanization tech-
nology system of cotton generation, the optimization and improvement of the machine is restricted
to a certain extent. Taking a cotton rootstalk–soil mixture at harvest stage in a Xinjiang cotton field
as the research object, the discrete element simulation model of a cotton rootstalk–soil mixture was
constructed, and the contact parameters of discrete element simulation were calibrated by combin-
ing simulation analysis with a physical test. The discrete element significant-influence parameters
of cotton rootstalk–soil mixture were screened by Placket–Burman test, and the optimal range of
significant-influence parameters was determined by the steepest climbing test. According to the prin-
ciple of Box–Behnken test, the quadratic regression model of repose angle and significant parameters
was established with repose angle as the response value. Taking the actual repose angle as the target,
the Design-Expert software was used to optimize the parameters with significant influence and obtain
the optimal combination of parameters. The optimal parameter combination was compared and
verified by simulation experiments. The relative error between the simulated repose angle and the
physical test was 2.36%. The results showed that the calibrated parameters were true and reliable,
which could provide a theoretical reference for the discrete element simulation of cotton rootstalk–soil
mixture in a Xinjiang cotton field.
Keywords: cotton rootstalk–soil mixture; repose angle; discrete element; parameter calibration
1. Introduction
As a major high-quality cotton producing area in China, Xinjiang has always ranked
first in terms of cotton planting area, total output, and yield per unit area [1,2]. A suitable
geographical environment and an advanced plastic film-mulching planting technology have
enabled the long-term rapid and stable development of the cotton industry in Xinjiang [3,4].
In 2022, the total planting area of cotton in Xinjiang had reached 2.4969 million hm2 ,
accounting for 83.22% of the national cotton planting area. In recent years, the use of plastic
film for cotton planting in Xinjiang has exceeded 180,000 tons per year [5,6]. However,
the pollution of residual film in the cotton field is serious, and the contradictions between
the use of plastic film and the protection of agricultural ecological environment and the
green sustainable development of modern agriculture are increasingly prominent. The
application of residual film recycling equipment in cotton fields, which mainly collects
mulch film in autumn, has alleviated the problem of residual film pollution to a certain
extent. However, most of the residual film recovered by this kind of machine is wrapped
around a large number of impurities, such as cotton stalks and soil, which are not conducive
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture
Agriculture 2023, 13, 1344 2 of 17

to the initial cleaning and resource utilization of residual film [7–9]. The comprehensive
treatment of residual film pollution in farmland is a systematic project, and the recovery
and resource utilization of residual film should be paid equal attention.
Releasing the film is the first step in the mechanical recycling of plastic film, which is
to separate the mulching film bonded to the surface from the soil, so a variety of loose-film
devices are designed and studied [10–12]. However, there is a phenomenon of shoveling
some cotton rootstalk during the operation of the existing loose-film devices. The cotton
rootstalk and soil are picked up together with the film, which increases the difficulty of
separating the film from the rootstalk, soil, and other impurities and affects the impurity rate
after the film collecting, thereby affecting the resource utilization of the film. Meanwhile,
the shoveled cotton rootstalk forms a blockage at the loose-film device, which affects the
performance of the machine. The interactions between plastic film recycling components,
soil, and cotton rootstalk are difficult to be analyzed by a mathematical model. The
numerical simulation of key components by the discrete element method (DEM) can
effectively simulate the trajectory of materials, instead of the complicated bench test, saving
time and labor, shortening the development cycle, and reducing costs [13,14]. In the
simulation test of the film lifting operation or the film and impurity separation, the accurate
discrete element contact parameters and characteristic parameters of cotton rootstalk and
soil can improve the accuracy of the particle interaction and motion law in the simulation,
so as to realize the parameter optimization of key components and improve the operation
performance of a plastic-film recycling machine.
Many studies have calibrated the discrete element model parameters of different ma-
terials to improve the accuracy of the simulation and make the simulation results closer to
the actual operation process. Ghodki et al. [15] calibrated the DEM input parameters of the
Hertz–Mindlin model of soybean using a standard box-type instrument by comparing the
experimental and numerical simulation results. Estay et al. [16] introduced the bond cali-
bration model and obtained the relationship between the micro and macro properties of the
bond element method used in DEM. This was achieved by trial-and-error procedures using
several DEM simulations of uniaxial compression tests. Rorato et al. [17] calibrated the
rolling resistance in discrete element models of sand based on an image. Coetzee et al. [18]
presented a procedure to determine the micro parameter values for the DEM modelling of
a cohesionless granular material. The particle stiffness and friction coefficient were deter-
mined by confined compression tests and angle of repose tests. Grima et al. [19] introduced
some bench-scale tests to calibrate DEM simulations to reflect actual dynamic behavior
and compared the results with the experimental slump test and hopper discharge test
to quantitatively compare the angle of repose and the solids’ mass flow rate of pouring
and drainage to verify the DEM model. Horabik et al. [20] calibrated the discrete element
method parameters of wheat for the modelling of a grain storage system and analyzed
the effects of material parameters on the accuracy of the DEM modelling of the odometric
compaction and unloading of bulk wheat. The results indicated good correspondence
between the experimental data and DEM simulations using the calibrated parameters.
Dai et al. [21] examined the dynamic piling process and the packing structure of a sandpile
using DEM simulations. Additionally, they focused on the effects of sliding and rolling
frictions, as well as the effect of particle size distribution, on the two structural properties
of the sandpile: the packing density and the angle of repose. Fang et al. [22] calibrated
the friction coefficient of corn stalk particle mixtures using Plackett–Burman design and
response surface methodology. Liao et al. [23] applied the discrete element method to
study the mixed sowing process of oat and arrow pea seeds and calibrated the interspecific
contact parameters of the mixed seeds, which provided a simulation parameter reference
for studying the motion characteristics and seeding performance of seeds. Tian et al. [24]
took a corn straw–soil mixture in a black soil area as the research object, constructed the
discrete element simulation model of the corn straw–soil mixture, and calibrated the con-
tact parameters of the mixture by combining physical test with the EDEM simulation test.
Liang et al. [25] tested the repose angle, restitution coefficient, and static and rolling friction
Agriculture 2023, 13, 1344 3 of 17

coefficient of cotton stalks with a moisture content of 10%, 30%, 50%, and 66.16%. The sim-
ulation model was established by using the discrete element software EDEM. The intrinsic
particle and contact parameters between the cotton stalk particles and the contact material
were measured with a physical test method by Zhang [26] and Li et al. [27]. Additionally,
based on the response surface method, the repose angel test of particles was simulated,
obtaining the optimal combination of contact parameters.
At present, the research objects of discrete element simulation parameters are mainly
single soil, seed, straw, fertilizer, and some mixture of materials, and there are few studies
on a cotton rootstalk–soil mixture. The interaction between soil and cotton rootstalk exists
in the releasing film operation of plastic film recycling, the pulling operation of cotton straw
recycling, and the tillage operation of cotton fields in Xinjiang. However, there is no obvious
law for the movement of a cotton rootstalk–soil mixture, and the finite element mixture
model cannot simulate the movement process of soil and rootstalk, so it is necessary to
research it.
In this paper, the cotton rootstalk–soil mixture in the autumn harvest period of Xinjiang
cotton field was taken as the research object. Combined with physical and simulation
tests, the contact parameters of a cotton rootstalk–soil mixture were calibrated by the
EDEM software. Taking the repose angle as the response value, the mixing repose angle
was measured by an image-processing method. The discrete element simulation and
calibration of a cotton rootstalk–soil mixing repose angle were carried out by Plackett–
Burman screening test, climbing test, and Box–Behnken test in order to determine the
optimal discrete element simulation parameter values.

2. Measurement of Soil and Cotton Rootstalk Parameters

2.1. Test Materials
The soil and cotton rootstalk were taken from the cotton planting field of 3 branches
of the 145 regiment in Shihezi City, Xinjiang in October. Cotton was planted with plastic
film-mulching technology in April of that year. According to the principle of the five-point
method in GB/T 5262-2008 ‘general provisions for determination of agricultural machinery
test conditions’, soil samples were taken from a 0 to 100 mm soil layer under plastic film
mulching, and the quality of each sample point was greater than 20 kg. According to the
operation of the straw crushing and returning machine, the cotton stalk in the sampling
point was pulled out, the stubble height was 100 mm, and the excess cotton branches were
cut off.

2.2. Basic Physical Parameters

2.2.1. Soil Particle-Size Distribution
According to the provisions of GB/T 50123-2019 ‘standard for soil test methods’
particle analysis test, 500 g of soil samples at each sample point were weighed with an
electronic balance (accuracy 0.001 g). The soil particle-size distribution and percentage
content were determined by a sieve analysis method. The standard sieve apertures were
1 mm and 5 mm, respectively. After statistical calculation, the mass fraction of soil particles
with a diameter of 0~1 mm was 42.05 ± 1.94%. The diameter of 1~5 mm had a value of
30.57 ± 1.93%. The diameter greater than 5 mm had a value of 27.38 ± 2.19%.

2.2.2. Density and Moisture Content of Soil

Soil density was measured by ring knife method. When sampling, the sample points
were cleaned up, and the Vaseline was evenly applied to the inner wall of the ring knife
(inner diameter 50.46 mm, height 50 mm, volume 100 cm3 ). The blade of the ring knife
was placed perpendicular to the soil plane, the handle was placed above the ring knife,
and the hammer was used to hit the handle to make the ring knife cut into the soil. When
the ring knife invades the soil, the soil was removed around the ring knife; then the ring
knife was gently removed, and the excess soil was scraped off with the scraper to make the
soil at both ends of the ring knife flat. In order to prevent the evaporation of soil moisture,
Agriculture 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18

the ring knife invades the soil, the soil was removed around the ring knife; then the ring
knife was gently removed, and the excess soil was scraped off with the scraper to make
Agriculture 2023, 13, 1344 4 of 17
the soil at both ends of the ring knife flat. In order to prevent the evaporation of soil mois-
ture, the soil samples were immediately placed on the electronic balance to weigh (accu-
racy 0.001 g). After weighing, the soil samples were placed in an aluminum box, and the
the
soilsoil samples
moisture were was
content immediately
measuredplaced on the
by drying electronic
method. Thebalance
averagetodry
weigh (accuracy
density of the
0.001 g). 1.328
soil was After ×weighing,
103 kg/m3the
, thesoil samples
average wetwere placed
density was in an aluminum
1.539 × 103 kg/m3box,
, andand the soil
the average
moisture
moisture content
content was measured by drying method. The average dry density of the soil
was 13.27%.
was 1.328 × 103 kg/m3 , the average wet density was 1.539 × 103 kg/m3 , and the average
moisture content
2.2.3. Density andwas 13.27%.Content of Cotton Rootstalk
Moisture
2.2.3. Six cotton
Density rootstalks
and Moisturewere takenofatCotton
Content each sampling
Rootstalkpoint. A total of 30 samples were
weighed with an electronic balance (accuracy 0.001 g). The volumes of 15 cotton rootstalks
Six cotton rootstalks were taken at each sampling point. A total of 30 samples were
were measured by wet drainage method, and the densities of the cotton rootstalks were
weighed with an electronic balance (accuracy 0.001 g). The volumes of 15 cotton rootstalks
calculated according to Equation (1). The remaining 15 cotton rootstalk samples were
were measured by wet drainage method, and the densities of the cotton rootstalks were
placed in an aluminum box, and the moisture content was measured by drying method.
calculated according to Equation (1). The remaining 315 cotton rootstalk samples were
The average density of cotton rootstalk was 825.8 kg/m and the average moisture content
placed in an aluminum box, and the moisture content was measured by drying method.
was 40.28%.
The average density of cotton rootstalk was 825.8 kg/m3 and the average moisture content
was 40.28%. m
ρ1 = m × 1000 (1)
ρ1 =V × 1000 (1)
V
where ρ1 is the density of cotton rootstalk, kg/m3; m is the mass of cotton rootstalk, g; and
where ρ1 is the density of cotton rootstalk, kg/m3 ; m is the mass of cotton rootstalk, g; and
VV is
is the
the volume
volume ofof cotton
cottonrootstalk
rootstalkwater
watersaturation, cm33..
saturation,cm

2.3. Discrete
2.3. Discrete Element
Element Contact
Contact Parameter
ParameterMeasurement
Measurement
The basic
The basic contact
contact parameters
parameters of of materials
materials include
include restitution
restitution coefficient,
coefficient, coefficient
coefficient
of static
of static friction,
friction, and
and rolling
rolling friction
friction coefficient
coefficient [28].
[28]. The
The shape
shape ofof the
the cotton
cotton rootstalk
rootstalk isis
different,which
different, whichisiscomposed
composedofofa cotton
a cotton stalk
stalk exposed
exposed to the
to the ground
ground andand cotton
cotton rootroot in
in the
the soil, as shown in Figure 1. There are more cotton roots, which are
soil, as shown in Figure 1. There are more cotton roots, which are significantly different significantly differ-
ent from
from the characteristics
the characteristics of cotton
of cotton stalk
stalk materials.
materials. InIn ordertotoensure
order ensurethe thetest
testeffect
effectand
and
accuracyofofthe
accuracy thecontact
contactparameters
parameters of of cotton
cotton rootstalk,
rootstalk, the the cotton
cotton rootstalk
rootstalk was was divided
divided into
into cotton
cotton stalk stalk and cotton
and cotton root according
root according to thetomethod
the method of measuring
of measuring the contact
the contact param-
parameters
eters
of of straw
straw in references
in references [25,29].[25,29]. The restitution
The restitution coefficient
coefficient and theand the coefficient
coefficient of static of static
friction
friction between
between cotton rootstalk
cotton rootstalk and contactand materials
contact materials were measured
were measured by inclined by inclined plate
plate impact
and inclined
impact plane method.
and inclined The rolling
plane method. Thefriction
rollingcoefficient between between
friction coefficient cotton rootstalk and
cotton root-
contact material was calibrated by repose-angle approximation, and
stalk and contact material was calibrated by repose-angle approximation, and the contactthe contact parameter
range of therange
parameter material was
of the clarified.
material was clarified.

Figure1.1. Structure
Figure Structureof
ofcotton
cottonrootstalk.
rootstalk.

2.3.1.
2.3.1. Restitution
Restitution Coefficient
Coefficient
The
The restitution
restitution coefficient
coefficient represents
represents the
the deformation
deformation recovery
recovery ability
ability of
of the
the object
object
during
duringcollision,
collision,which
whichisisthe
theratio
ratioof
of the
the normal
normal relative
relative separation
separationvelocity
velocityto
tothe
the normal
normal
relative
relative approach velocity at
approach velocity atthe
thecontact
contactpoint
pointofofthe
the two
two objects
objects before
before andand
afterafter
the the
col-
collision [30]. The restitution coefficient is often measured by free fall or inclined plate
collision. The measurement model is established according to the physical definition of
the restitution coefficient, and the test principle is shown in Figure 2a [31]. During the
test, the cotton stalk and cotton root particles of the cotton rootstalk were selected to be
dropped from the blanking hole of the horizontal feeding surface at a specified height.
 restitution coefficient, and the test principle is shown in Figure 2a [31]. During the test,
the cotton stalk and cotton root particles of the cotton rootstalk were selected to be
dropped from the blanking hole of the horizontal feeding surface at a specified height.
The particles fell freely and collided with the material on the 45° slope and fell onto the
butter after rebounding, as shown in Figure 2b. The restitution coefficients of cotton stalk–
Agriculture 2023, 13, 1344 5 of 17
steel, cotton stalk–soil, cotton stalk–cotton stalk, cotton root–steel, cotton root–soil, and
cotton root–cotton root were tested, respectively. Each group of experiments was repeated
20 times. The calculation is shown in Equation (2), where v0, vx, and ◦
vy can be calculated
The
by particles(3)
Equation fell freely
[31]. Theand
test collided
results arewith
shownthe material
in Table on
1. the 45 slope and fell onto the
butter after rebounding, as shown in Figure 2b. The restitution coefficients of cotton stalk–
steel, cotton stalk–soil, cotton stalk–cotton  π cotton
stalk, v root–steel, cotton root–soil, and
vx + v y  cos + arctan( x )
2 2

cotton root–cotton root were tested,

v respectively.  4 Each group
v y  of experiments was repeated
(2)
C = n =
20 times. The calculation isr shown
von in Equation π where v0 , vx , and vy can be calculated
(2),
v0  sin
by Equation (3) [31]. The test results are shown in 4 Table 1.

where Cr is the restitution coefficient. q The greater the h value of Cr, the i stronger the elastic
v 2 + v 2 · cos π + arctan( v x )
recovery deformation ability.vnvn is the normal separation
x y 4 velocityvyafter collision, m/s; von is
Cr = = before collision, m/s;π vx is the horizontal velocity after (2)
the normal approaching velocity
von v0 · sin 4
collision, m/s; vy is the vertical velocity after collision, and m/s; v0 is instantaneous collision
where Crm/s.
velocity, is the restitution coefficient. The greater the value of Cr , the stronger the elastic
recovery deformation ability. vn is the normal separation velocity after collision, m/s;

von is the normal approaching velocity gS − S2 )
1 S 2(S 1 collision,
before m/s; vx is the horizontal velocity
ν x =
after collision, m/s; vy is the vertical
 2(H
velocity S
1 2 − H
after S
2 1 )
collision, and m/s; v0 is instantaneous
collision velocity, m/s.  H1 x r gS1
νy = − (3)
  νx S=
 1  x1 S2 (S1 −S2 )
2gS
2( H1 S2 − H2 S1 )
v = 2 gHH ν gS (3)
 0
νy = 0S1 x − 2νx1
 
 p 1
v0 = 2gH0
where
where gg is
is the
the acceleration
acceleration of
of gravity, 9.8 N/kg;
gravity, 9.8 N/kg; SS11 and
and SS22are
arethe
thehorizontal
horizontaldisplacement
displacement
of
of the
the material
material movement
movement under
under different
different height
height conditions,
conditions, m;m; HH11 and
and H
H22are
arethe
thevertical
vertical
displacement
displacement of the material
of the materialmovement
movementunderunderdifferent
different height
height conditions,
conditions, m; m;
andand
H0 H is
is 0the
the release
release height,
height, m. m.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure2.
2.Restitution
Restitutioncoefficient
coefficient test:
test: (a)
(a)test
testprinciple;
principle;(b)
(b)practical
practical test.
test.

Table
Table 1.
1. Restitution
Restitution coefficient
coefficient between
between cotton
cotton rootstalk
rootstalk and
and contact
contact material.
material.
Parameters
Parameters
Test Results
Test Results
Cotton stalk–Steel 0.391~0.576
Cotton stalk–Steel 0.391~0.576
Cotton stalk–Soil
Cotton stalk–Soil 0.237~0.475
0.237~0.475
Cotton stalk–Cotton stalk 0.326~0.519
Cotton root–Steel 0.315~0.492
Cotton root–Soil 0.153~0.374
Cotton root–Cotton root 0.239~0.428

2.3.2. Coefficient of Static Friction

The static friction coefficients between cotton stalks or roots and the contact material
were measured through a slope slip test [32], as shown in Figure 3. The contact material
was bonded to the flat plate, and the cotton stalk or cotton root was placed at one end of the
contact material. At the beginning of the test, the flat plate was placed horizontally, and the
 2.3.2. Coefficient of Static Friction
The static friction coefficients between cotton stalks or roots and the contact material
were measured through a slope slip test [32], as shown in Figure 3. The contact material
Agriculture 2023, 13, 1344 was bonded to the flat plate, and the cotton stalk or cotton root was placed at one end 6 ofof
17
the contact material. At the beginning of the test, the flat plate was placed horizontally,
and the handle was rotated to lift one end of the flat plate slowly and uniformly. When
the cotton
handle wasstalk or cotton
rotated to liftroot
onehad
endaofdownward trend
the flat plate on the
slowly andslope, the measured
uniformly. When the material
cotton
lifting height H 3 and the distance from the shaft L were recorded. The static friction coef-
stalk or cotton root had a downward trend on the slope, the measured material lifting
ficient
heightbetween
H3 and thecotton rootstalk
distance fromand
the contact material
shaft L were was calculated
recorded. The staticbyfriction
Equation (4). In
coefficient
order
between cotton rootstalk and contact material was calculated by Equation (4). In orderse-
to reduce the measurement error, 15 cotton stalk and cotton root samples were to
lected
reducefor this
the physical test,error,
measurement and each sample
15 cotton testand
stalk wascotton
repeated
rootthree times.
samples The selected
were test results
for
are
thisshown
physicalin test,
Tableand
2. each sample test was repeated three times. The test results are shown
in Table 2. H
 = tan = 3 H3 (4)
µ = tan α L= (4)
L
where
where μµ is
is the
the static
static friction
friction coefficient
coefficient between
between thethe measured
measured material
material and
and the
the contact
contact
material;
material; and α is the inclination angle of the plate when the measured material slides, °.
and α is the inclination angle of the plate when the measured material ◦.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure3.3.Static
Staticfriction
frictioncoefficient
coefficientmeasurement
measurementtest:
test:(a)
(a)test
testprinciple;
principle;(b)
(b)actual
actualtest.
test.

Table
Table 2.
2. Coefficient
Coefficient of
of static
static friction
friction between
between cotton
cotton rootstalk
rootstalk and
and contact
contact material.
material.
Parameters
Parameters Test Results
Test Results
Cotton stalk–Steel 0.389~0.626
Cotton stalk–Steel 0.389~0.626
Cotton stalk–Soil
Cotton stalk–Soil 0.512~0.679
0.512~0.679
Cotton
Cotton stalk–Cotton stalk
stalk–Cotton stalk 0.447~0.651
0.447~0.651
Cotton root–Steel
Cotton root–Steel 0.452~0.664
0.452~0.664
Cotton root–Soil
Cotton root–Soil 0.535~0.725
0.535~0.725
Cotton root–Cotton root 0.481~0.702
Cotton root–Cotton root 0.481~0.702

2.3.3.Physical
2.3.3. PhysicalTest
Test of
of Repose
Repose Angle
Angle of
of Cotton
Cotton Rootstalk–Soil
Rootstalk–Soil Mixture
Mixture
Inthe
In the residual
residual film
film recovery
recoveryoperation,
operation,the
theloose-film
loose-filmshovel
shovelfirst separates
first thethe
separates surface
sur-
residual film from the soil, disturbs the soil during the separation process, and shovels some
face residual film from the soil, disturbs the soil during the separation process, and shov-
cotton rootstalks. According to the shape, number, and depth of the loose-film shovels, the
els some cotton rootstalks. According to the shape, number, and depth of the loose-film
amount of soil disturbance was calculated as shown in Equation (5).
shovels, the amount of soil disturbance was calculated as shown in Equation (5).

m1 = ρhB
(5)
m N = Nm1
where m1 is the amount of soil disturbance per unit length of a single loose-film shovel,
kg/m; ρ is soil wet density, kg/m3 ; h is the depth of the loose-film shovel into the soil, m;
B is the width of a single loose-film shovel, m; N is the number of loose-film shovels; and
mN is the amount of soil disturbance per unit length of N loose-film shovel, kg/m.
Xinjiang cotton is widely used in planting 6 rows on a plastic film (film width 2050 mm).
According to its planting mode, the quality of rootstalk in the unit length of the width is
calculated according to Equation (6).
(
n = L60
(6)
m g = m0 n
 mm). According to its planting mode, the quality of rootstalk in the unit length of the
width is calculated according to Equation (6).
 6
n = L
 0 (6)
m = m n
Agriculture 2023, 13, 1344  g 0 7 of 17

where n is the number of cotton plants per unit length on the width of a single plastic film
(2050 mm); L0 is cotton plant spacing, m; m0 is the average mass of single cotton rootstalk,
kg; andnm
where isg the number
is the of cotton
total mass plants
of cotton per unit
rootstalk perlength on theon
unit length width of a plastic-film
a single single plastic film
width
(2050 mm);
(2050 mm), kg. L 0 is cotton plant spacing, m; m 0 is the average mass of single cotton rootstalk,
kg; and mg is the total mass of cotton rootstalk per unit length on a single plastic-film width
m NhB
(2050 mm), kg. K= N =
mg 6m0 (7)
m N L NρhB
K= = 0 6m (7)
mg 0
L0
The parameters of the commonly used loose-film shovel are width B = 25 mm, the
The parameters of the commonly used loose-film
depth of penetration h = 50 mm, the number of film teeth N = 15, shovel areand
widththe Bsampling
= 25 mm, the
point
depth of penetration h = 50 mm, the number of film teeth N = 15, and
of cotton plant spacing L0 = 10 mm. Substituting the above values into Equations (6) and the sampling point of
cotton plant spacing L0 = 10 mm. Substituting the above values into Equations (6) and (7),
(7), the mass ratio of soil to cotton rootstalk K was 31.61:1.
the mass ratio of soil to cotton rootstalk K was 31.61:1.
The repose angle of the cotton rootstalk–soil mixture was measured by the cylinder
The repose angle of the cotton rootstalk–soil mixture was measured by the cylinder
lifting method [33,34]. The cotton stalk, main root, and fibrous root of cotton rootstalk
lifting method [33,34]. The cotton stalk, main root, and fibrous root of cotton rootstalk were
were made into particles with a length of 10 mm. The mass ratio K of the cotton rootstalk
made into particles with a length of 10 mm. The mass ratio K of the cotton rootstalk to
to soil was 32:1 after rounding. The cylinder used in the test was a steel cylinder with an
soil was 32:1 after rounding. The cylinder used in the test was a steel cylinder with an
inner diameter of 100 mm and a height of 200 mm. In the experiment, the mass of cotton
inner diameter of 100 mm and a height of 200 mm. In the experiment, the mass of cotton
rootstalk was 0.06 kg, and the soil mass was 1.92 kg. In order to reduce the measurement
rootstalk was 0.06 kg, and the soil mass was 1.92 kg. In order to reduce the measurement
error of the repose angle, 20 physical tests were carried out. During the tests, a camera
error of the repose angle, 20 physical tests were carried out. During the tests, a camera
was used to take photos of the repose angle of cotton rootstalk–soil mixture (Figure 4a).
was used to take photos of the repose angle of cotton rootstalk–soil mixture (Figure 4a).
The digital-image-processing software in Matlab was used to read the edge image of the
The digital-image-processing software in Matlab was used to read the edge image of the
mixture particle
mixture particle pile.
pile. The
The image
image was grayed and
was grayed binarized (Figure
and binarized 4b), the
(Figure 4b), the binary
binary image
image
was output, and the boundary contour was extracted (Figure 4c).
was output, and the boundary contour was extracted (Figure 4c). Each pixel was scanned Each pixel was scanned
on the
on the contour
contour image,
image, thethe coordinates
coordinates andand number
number of of white dots were
white dots were recorded,
recorded, andand the
the
recorded white dots were linearly fitted by the least square method. The
recorded white dots were linearly fitted by the least square method. The slope of the fitted slope of the fitted
line was
line was read
readby byMatlab
Matlab(Figure
(Figure4d).
4d).The
Thearithmetic
arithmetic mean
mean of of
thethe repose
repose angle
angle of the
of the mix-
mixture
ture of cotton rootstalk and soil
of cotton rootstalk and soil was 31.22 . was 31.22°.
◦

Agriculture 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 4. Image
4. Image processing
processing of of cotton
cotton thethe rootstalk–soil
rootstalk–soil mixture
mixture repose-angle
repose-angle test:(a)
test: original
(a) original image;
image;
(b) binary image contour extraction; (c) edge contour; (d) fitting image.
(b) binary image contour extraction; (c) edge contour; (d) fitting image.

3. 3. Discrete
Discrete Element
Element Contact
Contact Parameters
Parameters Optimization
Optimization
TheThe discrete
discrete element
element method
method (DEM)
(DEM) is is a computer
a computer numerical
numerical simulation
simulation method
method
based
based ononthethe assumption
assumption of of discontinuity,
discontinuity, which
which hashas
thethe advantages
advantages of of high
high model
model fidelity
fidelity
and high
and accuracy
high of simulation
accuracy of simulationresults in simulating
results the motion
in simulating and and
the motion dynamic response
dynamic of
response
of non-homogeneous, non-linear, and anisotropic discontinuous bodies [13,35]. The cred-
ibility of discrete element simulation largely depends on the selection of its contact model
and the setting of simulation parameters [36,37]. Engineering discrete element modelling
(EDEM) is a comprehensive computer-aided design engineering software. In the field of
Agriculture 2023, 13, 1344 8 of 17

non-homogeneous, non-linear, and anisotropic discontinuous bodies [13,35]. The credibility

of discrete element simulation largely depends on the selection of its contact model and the
setting of simulation parameters [36,37]. Engineering discrete element modelling (EDEM)
is a comprehensive computer-aided design engineering software. In the field of agricultural
engineering, many researchers have used EDEM software to simulate and analyze the
movement of various granular particles.
Since the cotton rootstalk is an anisotropic material, this paper uses the simulation
approximation method to calibrate the contact parameters of the cotton rootstalk. The
repose angle reflects the flow and friction characteristics of the particulate material, which
is related to the contact material and its own physical characteristics. Therefore, the repose-
angle physical experiment is often used to calibrate the particle discrete element parameters.
The accumulation test of cotton rootstalk and soil mixture was carried out by using the
parameter range calibrated by the physical test, and the parameters were continuously
adjusted to make the simulated repose-angle approach the actual approach to obtain
accurate parameters.

3.1. Establishment of Particle Models and Setting of EDEM Parameters

The contact model is an important basis of the discrete element method. DEM is used
to simulate the contact between particles and particles and particles and boundaries by
using the vibration motion equation. The Hertz–Mindlin (no slip) model is the default
model used in EDEM, which is accurate and efficient in force calculation. In this model, both
the normal force and the tangential force have damping components, and the tangential
friction obeys the Coulomb friction law. The rolling friction is realized by the contact
independent directional constant torque model, and the damping coefficient is related
to the coefficient of restitution [38,39]. Hertz–Mindlin (no slip) is suitable for the motion
simulation of wet materials with a certain moisture content and granular materials with a
certain cohesion. So, when EDEM software was used to carry out the accumulation test of
cotton rootstalk–soil mixture, the test model was Hertz–Mindlin [25,40].
In order to simplify the model and improve the simulation efficiency, the soil and
cotton rootstalk particles with the same particle size as the physical test were formed by
the combination of circular particles. The average diameter of the cotton stalk measured
was 9.86 mm. The diameter of the large end of the main root stem was 7.25 mm, and
the small end was 2.66 mm (average diameter was 4.96 mm), while the fibrous roots was
2.08 mm. Therefore, the cotton stalk part of the cotton rootstalk was made into particles
with a diameter of 10 mm and a length of 10 mm (Figure 5a). The cotton root part was
made into two kinds of particles with a diameter of 5 mm and a length of 10 mm, and a
diameter of 2 mm and a length of 10 mm, as shown in Figure 5b,c. There were 75 grains
of each particle in the cotton rootstalk part, with a total of 225 grains (0.06 kg). Due to
the complex shape of soil particles, the soil particle model was established using a single
spherical particle, dual surface, and square four sphere in the EDEM particle library. The
single spherical particle model had a diameter of 1 mm, the double spherical particle model
consisted of two spherical particles with a diameter of 3 mm, and the square four-sphere
model consisted of four spherical particles with a diameter of 6 mm. The mass percentages
of the three soil particle models were 42%, 31%, and 27%, respectively (Figure 5d–f). The
total mass of soil particles was 1.92 kg.
In the EDEM simulation test, a steel cylinder and a bottom plate model with the same
physical test parameters were established, and a virtual plane was established above the
cylinder as a particle factory, as shown in Figure 6. In order to ensure the uniformity of
material mixing, soil and cotton rootstalk particles were generated at the same time. The
formation rates of soil particles and cotton rootstalk particles were 0.48 kg/s and 0.015 kg/s,
respectively. The generation time was 4 s, and the total simulation time was 10 s. After the
simulation, the software post-processing function was used to calculate the repose angle of
the mixture.
 physical test parameters were established, and a virtual plane was established above the
material mixing, soil and cotton rootstalk particles were generated at the same time. The
cylinder as a particle factory, as shown in Figure 6. In order to ensure the uniformity of
formation rates of soil particles and cotton rootstalk particles were 0.48 kg/s and 0.015
material mixing, soil and cotton rootstalk particles were generated at the same time. The
kg/s, respectively.
formation The generation
rates of soil particles time
and cotton was 4particles
rootstalk s, and the
weretotal
0.48simulation time was 10 s
kg/s and 0.015
kg/s,After the simulation,
respectively. the software
The generation post-processing
time was function
4 s, and the total wastime
simulation usedwas
to 10
calculate
s. the re
Agriculture 2023, 13, 1344 9 of 17
pose angle of the mixture.
After the simulation, the software post-processing function was used to calculate the re-
pose angle of the mixture.

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (d) (e) (e) (f) (f)

Figure 5. Particle
Figure
Figure models:
5.5.Particle
Particle (a) cotton
models:
models: (a)(a)stalk
cotton
cotton particle;
stalk
stalk (b) coarse
particle;
particle; rootcoarse
(b)
(b) coarse particle of cotton
root
root particle root;
particle
of cotton (c)
ofroot; fine
cotton (c) root
root; (c) fine roo
fine root
particle of cotton root;
particleofofcotton (d)
cottonroot; single
root; spherical soil particle; (e) double spherical soil particle; soilsquare
(f)
particle (d)(d) single
single spherical
spherical soil particle;
soil particle; (e) double
(e) double spherical
spherical soil particle; particle;
(f) square(f) square
four spherical soil particle.
fourspherical
four sphericalsoilsoil particle.
particle.

(a) (b)
Figure 6. Repose-angle simulation test. (a) particle filling; (b) heap completion.
(a) (b)
In order
Figure
Figure to obtain thesimulation
6.6.Repose-angle
Repose-angle contact parameters
simulationtest.test. of cotton
(a) particle
(a) particle rootstalk,
filling;
filling; the contact
(b)completion.
(b) heap heap parameters
completion.
of cotton stalk and cotton root in Table 2 were combined as the contact parameter range
of cottonInInorder
ordertoto
rootstalk. Inobtain the
thecontact
the simulation
obtain test,parameters
contact the of cotton
cotton stalk
parameters ofand rootstalk,
cotton
cotton rootthe contact
particle
rootstalk, parame-
param-
the contact parameters
ters of
etersofwere
cottoncotton stalk
set stalk
the same.and cotton
According
and cotton root in
roottointhe Table 2 were
experimental
Table combined as
measurements
2 were combined the contact
as theand parameter
references
contact parameter range
range of cotton rootstalk. In the simulation test, the cotton stalk and cotton root particle
of cotton rootstalk. In the simulation test, the cotton stalk and cotton root particle param
parameters were set the same. According to the experimental measurements and refer-
eters [12,25–27,32,41–43],
ences were set the same. theAccording
setting range toofthe experimental
discrete measurements
element parameters and references
in this paper is
shown in Table 3.

3.2. Simulation Test and Analysis

Due to the particularity of the structure of cotton rootstalk, the contact parameters
between cotton rootstalk and soil or steel plate are quite different. Therefore, it is necessary
to accurately calibrate and optimize the simulation parameters between cotton rootstalk
and contact materials based on the actual test range value. Through Plackett–Burman (PB)
screening test, the related factors affecting the accumulation of cotton stalk stubble and
soil mixture were screened out. Secondly, the steepest ascent test was carried out for the
significant factors to quickly find the reasonable range value. Finally, the calibration model
established by response surface methodology (RSM) was compared with the real test to
solve the parameters between cotton rootstalk and contact material [44].
Agriculture 2023, 13, 1344 10 of 17

Table 3. Parameters used in the simulation.

Materials Parameters Values Source Materials Parameters Values Source

Density (kg·m−3 ) 826 Measurement Restitution coefficient 0.446 Measurement
Cotton
Cotton rootstalk Shear Modulus Static friction
1~2 [25–27] rootstalk-Steel 0.527 Measurement
(MPa)/x1 coefficient
Rolling friction
Poisson’s Ratio/x2 0.3~0.5 [25–27] 0.2 [25–27]
coefficient
Density (kg·m−3 ) 1539 Measurement Restitution coefficient 0.48 [32,41]
Soil Shear Modulus Soil-Soil Static friction
1 [12,32] 0.56 [32,41]
(MPa) coefficient
Rolling friction
Poisson’s Ratio 0.4 [12,32] 0.24 [32,41]
coefficient
Density (kg·m−3 ) 7850 [25,41] Restitution coefficient 0.6 [32,41]
Steel Soil-Steel Static friction
Shear Modulus (Pa) 7.9 × 1010 [25,41] 0.5 [32,41]
coefficient
Rolling friction
Poisson’s Ratio 0.3 [25,41] 0.15 [32,41]
coefficient
Restitution Restitution
Cotton 0.239~0.519 Measurement 0.153~0.475 Measurement
coefficient/x3 Cotton coefficient/x6
rootstalk–Cotton Static friction Static friction
0.447~0.702 Measurement rootstalk-Soil 0.512~0.725 Measurement
rootstalk coefficient/x4 coefficient/x7
Rolling friction Rolling friction
0.05~0.25 [42,43] 0.05~0.25 [42,43]
coefficient/x5 coefficient/x8

3.2.1. Plackett–Burman Test

The Plackett–Burman test determined the significance of each factor by comparing
the difference between the level of each factor 2 and the overall difference, so as to quickly
screen out the factors that had a significant effect on the response value. In this paper,
the Plackett–Burman module of Design-Expert 8.0 was used to screen out the factors that
had significant effects on the repose angle of the mixture with the repose angle of soil,
cotton stalk and cotton root as the response value. The maximum and minimum values of
x1 ~x8 in Table 3 are coded as +1 and −1, respectively. Three central points were set in the
experiment, a total of 15 groups. The Plackett–Burman design and the results are shown in
Table 4. The linear fitting results of the repose angle are shown in Figure 7.

Table 4. Plackett–Burman design and results.

No. x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 Repose Angle (◦ )

1 1 1 −1 1 1 1 −1 −1 26.56
2 −1 1 1 −1 1 1 1 −1 28.61
3 1 −1 1 1 −1 1 1 1 32.38
4 −1 1 −1 1 1 −1 1 1 32.87
5 −1 −1 1 −1 1 1 −1 1 24.12
6 −1 −1 −1 1 −1 1 1 −1 30.21
7 1 −1 −1 −1 1 −1 1 1 26.01
8 1 1 −1 −1 −1 1 −1 1 25.81
9 1 1 1 −1 −1 −1 1 −1 25.47
10 −1 1 1 1 −1 −1 −1 1 31.35
11 1 −1 1 1 1 −1 −1 −1 35.29
12 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 23.15
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28.49
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27.34
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28.23
 cant order of the influence of each parameter on the repose angle was shown in Table 5.
In the cotton rootstalk–soil mixture stacking test, x1, x2, x5, x6, and x8 had little effect on the
repose angle, and the contribution rate was less than 5%. The contribution rates of x7 and
x3 to the repose angle were 4.11% and 7.95%, respectively, and the contribution rate of x4
Agriculture 2023, 13, 1344
was as high as 62.95%, indicating that x3, x4, and x7 had a great influence on the formation 11 of 17
of the repose angle. Therefore, x3, x4, and x7 with a large contribution rate and significant
influence on the repose angle were selected for the subsequent steepest climbing test.

No. 1 No. 2 No. 3

Agriculture 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 18

No. 4 No. 5 No. 6

No. 7 No. 8 No. 9

No. 10 No. 11 No. 12

No. 13 No. 14 No. 15

Figure 7. The linear fitting results of the repose angle of the Plackett–Burman tests.
Figure 7. The linear fitting results of the repose angle of the Plackett–Burman tests.

Table 5. Analysis of Plackett–Burman screening test results.

Test Factors Standardized Effect Quadratic Sum Contribution Rate (%) Saliency List
x1 0.20 0.12 0.073 5
x2 −0.082 0.020 0.012 8
Agriculture 2023, 13, 1344 12 of 17

Table 5. Analysis of Plackett–Burman screening test results.

Contribution
Test Factors Standardized Effect Quadratic Sum Saliency List
Rate (%)
x1 0.20 0.12 0.073 5
x2 −0.082 0.020 0.012 8
x3 2.10 13.25 7.95 3
x4 5.92 104.96 62.95 1
x5 −0.12 0.044 0.027 6
x6 −0.10 0.033 0.020 7
x7 2.51 18.98 11.38 2
x8 1.51 6.86 4.11 4

The Design-Expert software was used to process the data in Table 4, and the significant
order of the influence of each parameter on the repose angle was shown in Table 5. In
the cotton rootstalk–soil mixture stacking test, x1 , x2 , x5 , x6 , and x8 had little effect on the
repose angle, and the contribution rate was less than 5%. The contribution rates of x7 and
x3 to the repose angle were 4.11% and 7.95%, respectively, and the contribution rate of x4
was as high as 62.95%, indicating that x3 , x4 , and x7 had a great influence on the formation
of the repose angle. Therefore, x3 , x4 , and x7 with a large contribution rate and significant
influence on the repose angle were selected for the subsequent steepest climbing test.

3.2.2. Steepest Climbing Test

Based on the Plackett–Burman stacking test, three significant influencing parameters
were selected, and the relative error between the simulated repose angle and the actual
repose angle was used as the evaluation index to determine the optimal range of the test
parameters, as shown in Equation (8). In the simulation process, x1 , x2 , x5 , x8 , and x6
adopted the intermediate level of the values in Table 3. The steepest climbing test design
and results are shown in Table 6.
| θ − θ0 |
y= × 100% (8)
θ0

where, y is the relative error between the simulated repose angle and the actual repose
angle of the mixture of cotton rootstalk and soil, %; θ is the simulated repose angle of the
mixture, ◦ ; θ 0 is the actual repose angle of the mixture, ◦ .

Table 6. The steepest climbing test design and results.

Restitution Coefficient of Static Friction Coefficient of Static Friction

Repose Relative
No. Cotton Rootstalk–Cotton Cotton Rootstalk–Cotton Coefficient of Cotton
Angle (◦ )/θ Error (%)/y
Rootstalk/x3 Rootstalk/x4 Rootstalk–Soil/x7
1 0.239 0.447 0.512 26.13 16.30
2 0.309 0.511 0.565 29.05 6.96
3 0.379 0.575 0.618 30.56 2.12
4 0.449 0.639 0.671 32.89 5.35
5 0.519 0.702 0.725 34.52 10.55

When the three test factors gradually increased, the relative error of the repose angle
decreased first and then increased, and the relative error of the repose angle of the No. 3 test
was the smallest, which was 2.12%. Based on the steepest climbing test, each parameter in
the No. 3 test was determined as the center point of the later test, and No. 2 and No. 4 were
used as low level and high level, respectively. The significant relationship of the model was
verified by Box–Behnken response surface test, and the optimal parameter combination
was obtained by optimization.
Agriculture 2023, 13, 1344 13 of 17

3.2.3. Box–Behnken Experiment

The three-factor and three-level response surface test design was carried out by Design-
Expert software. A total of 17 sets of simulation tests were designed. The test design scheme
and results are shown in Table 7. The second-order regression equation between the repose
angle of the cotton rootstalk–soil mixture and three significant parameters was obtained by
multiple regression fitting of the test results, as shown in Equation (9).

Y = 122.54 − 221.07x3 − 303.96x4 + 49.25x7 + 364.96x3 x4 + 500x3 x7 − 54.54x4 x7 − 326.22x3 2 + 185.91x4 2 − 145.43x7 2 (9)

Table 7. Box–Benhnken test scheme and results.

Factors

No. Restitution Coefficient of Static Friction Coefficient Repose Angle (◦ )/Y

Static Friction Coefficient
Cotton Rootstalk–Cotton of Cotton Rootstalk–Cotton
of Cotton Rootstalk–Soil/x7
Rootstalk/x3 Rootstalk/x4
1 0.309 0.511 0.618 27.42
2 0.309 0.575 0.565 25.97
3 0.309 0.575 0.671 24.51
4 0.309 0.639 0.618 25.24
5 0.379 0.511 0.565 27.80
6 0.379 0.511 0.671 31.78
7 0.379 0.639 0.671 34.02
8 0.379 0.639 0.565 30.78
9 0.449 0.511 0.618 31.30
10 0.449 0.575 0.565 29.25
11 0.449 0.575 0.671 35.21
12 0.449 0.639 0.618 35.66
13 0.379 0.575 0.618 30.37
14 0.379 0.575 0.618 30.65
15 0.379 0.575 0.618 29.98
16 0.379 0.575 0.618 31.14
17 0.379 0.575 0.618 31.57

The analysis of variance results of the regression model are shown in Table 8. The results
showed that the p value of the regression model was less than 0.0001, indicating that the model
was extremely significant. The lack of fit was p = 0.2907 > 0.05, the determination coefficient was
R2 = 0.9779, and the adeq precision was 20.166, indicating that the model had good accuracy and
could better reflect the relationship between the repose angle and the restitution coefficient of cotton
rootstalk–cotton rootstalk, the static friction coefficient of cotton rootstalk–cotton rootstalk, and the
static friction coefficient of soil–cotton rootstalk. According to the p value of the model, the effects of
x3 , x4 , and x7 on the repose angle of the mixture were very significant (p < 0.01). The interaction term
x4 x7 had no significant effect on the repose angle, and the interaction terms x3 x7 and x4 x7 had a very
significant effect on the repose angle.

Table 8. Analysis of variance.

Source Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value p Value

Model 162.15 18.02 34.42 <0.0001
x3 99.97 99.97 190.98 <0.0001 **
x4 6.85 6.85 13.08 0.0086 **
x7 17.17 17.17 32.80 0.0007 **
x3 x4 10.69 10.69 20.43 0.0027 **
x3 x7 13.76 13.76 26.29 0.0014 **
x4 x7 0.14 0.14 0.26 0.6248
x3 2 10.76 10.76 20.55 0.0027 **
x4 2 2.44 2.44 4.66 0.0676
x7 2 0.70 0.70 1.34 0.2846
Agriculture 2023, 13, 1344 14 of 17

Table 8. Cont.

Source Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value p Value

Residual 3.66 0.52
Lack of Fit 2.09 0.70 1.78 0.2907
Pure Error 1.57 0.39
Cor Total 165.82
Adeq Precision 20.166
R2 = 0.9779, R2 Adj = 0.9495, R2 Pred = 0.7833, C.V. = 2.40%
** extremely significant factor (p ≤ 0.01), p > 0.05 non-significant factor.

The Origin 8 software was used to draw the response surface that the interaction of the three
factors had a significant effect on the repose angle, as shown in Figure 8. Figure 8a shows that when
the restitution coefficient of cotton rootstalk–cotton rootstalk x3 is constant, the repose angle Y of the
mixture increases with the increase in the static friction coefficient of cotton rootstalk–cotton rootstalk
x4 . When x4 is constant, the repose angle Y increases with the increase in x3 , and the influence of x3
on the repose angle is more significant than that of x4 . Figure 8b indicates that when x3 is constant,
the repose angle Y increases with the increase in the static friction coefficient of soil–cotton rootstalk
Agriculture 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 o
x7 . When x7 is constant, the repose angle Y increases with the increase in x3 , and the influence of x3
on the repose angle Y is more significant than that of x7 .

(a) (b)

Figure 8. ResponseFigure
surface8.ofResponse surface ofon
factor interaction factor interaction
repose angle: (a)on
x3 repose angle: (a)
x4 interaction; (b)xx3x34xinteraction; (b) x3x7 inte
7 interaction.
tion.
3.3. Parameter Optimization and Simulation Verification
3.3. Parameter
In the factor level range, theOptimization and Simulation
parameters were Verification
optimized by using the Design-Expert software
In the the
optimization function. Taking factor level
actual range,
repose the of
angle 31.22◦ as the
parameters were optimized
target value, a by
set using the Design-Ex
of solutions,
which were close software optimization
to the physical function.
test results, Taking the
were obtained: theactual repose
restitution angle ofof31.22°
coefficient cottonas the ta
value, aofset
rootstalk–cotton rootstalk of solutions,
0.384, the static which
frictionwere close of
coefficient to cotton
the physical test results,
rootstalk–cotton were obtained:
rootstalk
of 0.579, and the static friction
restitution coefficientofofcotton
coefficient cottonrootstalk–cotton
rootstalk–soil ofrootstalk
0.625. In of
order to the
0.384, verify thefriction c
static
reliability of the discrete element simulation, the simulation test of the repose angle of the cotton
ficient of cotton rootstalk–cotton rootstalk of 0.579, and the static friction coefficien
rootstalk–soil mixture particles
cotton was carried
rootstalk–soil out with
of 0.625. the above
In order parameters.
to verify The test
the reliability ofwas repeatedelement s
the discrete
three times to takeulation,
the average value. The simulation test result of the repose angle was ◦,
31.96mixture
the simulation test of the repose angle of the cotton rootstalk–soil p
and the relative error
cleswith
was the physical
carried test result
out with was 2.36%,
the above indicating
parameters. Thethat
testthe
wasobtained
repeated optimal
three times to t
simulation contactthe parameter
average combination was basically
value. The simulation testconsistent with
result of the the actual
repose anglevalue, which and the r
was 31.96°,
verified the authenticity and reliability of the simulation test. Meanwhile, the different moisture
tive error with the physical test result was 2.36%, indicating that the obtained opti
content of cotton rootstalk and soil and the adhesion between them have a certain influence on the
simulation contact parameter combination was basically consistent with the actual va
contact parameters between the mixture materials. This paper has studied only one water content
which verified the authenticity and reliability of the simulation test. Meanwhile, the
condition, and further research will be conducted on the impact of different moisture contents of the
ferent
mixture on the contact moisturein
parameters content of cotton rootstalk and soil and the adhesion between them h
the future.
a certain influence on the contact parameters between the mixture materials. This pa
has studied only one water content condition, and further research will be conducted
the impact of different moisture contents of the mixture on the contact parameters in
future.

4. Conclusions
(1) Based on the discrete element EDEM simulation software, the Hertz–Mindlin c
tact model was used to simulate the discrete element simulation of the cotton rootst
soil mixture and calibrate the relevant parameters.
Agriculture 2023, 13, 1344 15 of 17

4. Conclusions
(1) Based on the discrete element EDEM simulation software, the Hertz–Mindlin contact model
was used to simulate the discrete element simulation of the cotton rootstalk–soil mixture and calibrate
the relevant parameters.
(2) Using the method of combining physical experiment and simulation experiment, the Plackett–
Burman test was used to screen out the factors that had a significant effect on the repose angle of
cotton rootstalk–soil mixture. The factors were the restitution coefficient of cotton rootstalk–cotton
rootstalk, the static friction coefficient of cotton rootstalk–cotton rootstalk, and the static friction
coefficient of cotton rootstalk–soil. Through the Box–Behnken test, a second-order regression model
between the repose angle and the three factors was established, and the variance and regression
model interaction effects were analyzed.
(3) Taking the physical repose angle of cotton rootstalk–soil mixture as the target, the influence
parameters were optimized, and the optimal parameter combination was obtained as follows: the
restitution coefficient of cotton rootstalk–cotton rootstalk of 0.384, the static friction coefficient of
cotton rootstalk–cotton rootstalk of 0.579, and the static friction coefficient of cotton rootstalk–soil of
0.625. The optimal parameter combination was verified by simulation test. The relative error between
the optimal parameter combination repose angle and the actual physical repose angle was 2.36%,
which verified the reliability of the simulation model parameters.
(4) Cotton rootstalk is the main factor affecting the material dynamics behavior in the releasing
film operation of plastic-film recycling, the pulling operation of cotton stalk recycling, and the tillage
operation of cotton fields in Xinjiang. In this paper, the intrinsic parameters of cotton rootstalk
and soil, as well as the contact parameters between them, were obtained by the combination of an
actual measurement and a simulation calibration. This study provides theoretical guidance for the
establishment of simulation models of cotton rootstalk, soil, and tillage components, as well as for the
exploring the mechanism of mechanical operation in cotton fields and carrying out related research
on the coupling interaction between machinery, soil, and cotton rootstalk. Moreover, it provides
technical support for the design optimization of loose-film shovels, straw lifting devices, and plough
and cultivated land parts.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.J.; methodology, D.J. and J.Y.; software, J.Y. and Y.L.;
validation, H.G.; writing—original draft preparation, D.J.; writing—review and editing, L.Y.; supervi-
sion, X.C.; funding acquisition, L.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of
China (grant number 2022YFD2002403), the Science and Technology Department of Xinjiang Uygur
Autonomous Region (grant number 2022B02020-4), and the National Cotton Industry Technology
System (grant number CARS-15-23).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wang, Z.H.; Han, M.Q.; Song, L.B.; Zong, R.; Wen, Y.; Wu, X.D. Effects of aeration on the growth and water use efficiency of
cotton under mulched drip irrigation in the dry areas of Northwest China. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2022, 38, 108–116.
2. Fu, L.H.; Liu, A.H. China Statistical Yearbook; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2022.
3. Li, J.H.; Wu, Y.K.; Zhang, Q.; Li, H.Q.; Pan, H.S.; Lu, W.; Wang, D.M.; Zhang, J.P.; Lu, Y.H. Aphid parasitism and parasitoid
diversity in cotton fields in Xinjiang, China. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, 0207034. [CrossRef]
4. Li, N.; Lin, H.X.; Wang, T.X.; Li, Y.; Liu, Y.; Chen, X.G.; Hu, X.T. Impact of climate change on cotton growth and yields in Xinjiang,
China. Field Crops Res. 2020, 247, 107590. [CrossRef]
5. Cui, J.L. The Entire Mechanization of Cotton Production Urgently Needs to Be Upgraded and Upgraded. Farmers Daily. 29
November 2022. Available online: https://szb.farmer.com.cn/2022/20221129/20221129_007/20221129_007_1.htm (accessed on
10 March 2023).
6. Zhao, Y.; Chen, X.G. Problems and prospects of high quality cotton production in China. J. Tarim Univ. 2023, 35, 1–8.
7. Zhao, Y.; Chen, X.G.; Wen, H.J.; Zheng, X.; Niu, Q.; Kang, J.M. Research status and prospect of control technology for residual
plastic film pollution in farmland. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 2017, 48, 1–14.
Agriculture 2023, 13, 1344 16 of 17

8. Liang, R.Q.; Zhang, B.C.; Zhou, P.F.; Li, Y.P.; Meng, H.W.; Kan, Z. Cotton length distribution characteristics in the shredded
mixture of mechanically recovered residual films and impurities. Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 182, 114917. [CrossRef]
9. Wang, P.; Chen, X.G.; Wen, H.J. Research and experiment on the removal mechanism of light impurities of the residual mulch
film recovery machine. Agriculture 2022, 12, 775. [CrossRef]
10. Yang, S.M.; Chen, X.G.; Yan, L.M.; Jiang, D.L. Performance of three different spades for residual plastic film recycling machine.
Appl. Eng. Agric. 2020, 36, 187–195. [CrossRef]
11. Kang, J.M.; Wang, S.G.; Yan, L.M.; Wang, N.N.; Di, M.L.; Du, J.W. Design and experiment of loosen shovel installed on plastic film
collecting machine. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 2016, 47, 143–148.
12. Wang, F.; Dai, F.; Zhang, F.W.; Song, X.F.; Shi, R.J.; Zhao, W.Y.; Ma, H.J. Simulation analysis and test on the effect of picking up the
residual film of typical film lifting parts. Agronomy 2023, 13, 488. [CrossRef]
13. Zeng, Z.W.; Ma, X.; Cao, X.L.; Li, Z.H.; Wang, X.C. Critical review of applications of discrete element method in agricultural
engineering. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 2021, 52, 1–20.
14. Yan, D.X.; Yu, J.Q.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, L.; Sun, K.; Tian, Y. A Review of the application of discrete element method in agricultural
engineering: A case study of soybean. Processes 2022, 10, 1305. [CrossRef]
15. Ghodki, B.M.; Patel, M.; Namdeo, R.; Carpenter, G. Calibration of discrete element model parameters: Soybeans. Comput. Part.
Mech. 2018, 6, 3–10. [CrossRef]
16. Estay, D.; Chacana, F.; Ibarra, J.; Pérez, L.; Lascano, S. Bond calibration method for Young’s modulus determination in the discrete
element method framework. Granul. Matter 2017, 19, 60. [CrossRef]
17. Rorato, R.; Arroyo, M.; Gens, A.; Ando, E.; Viggiani, G. Image-based calibration of rolling resistance in discrete element models of
sand. Comput. Geotech. 2021, 131, 103929. [CrossRef]
18. Coetzee, C.J.; Els, D.N.J.; Dymond, G.F. Discrete element parameter calibration and the modelling of dragline bucket filling. J.
Terramechanics 2010, 47, 33–44. [CrossRef]
19. Grima, A.P.; Wypych, P.W. Development and validation of calibration methods for discrete element modelling. Granul. Matter
2011, 13, 127–132. [CrossRef]
20. Horabik, J.H.; Wiacek,
˛ J.; Parafiniuk, P.; Bańda, M.; Kobyłka, R.; Stasiak, M.; Molenda, M. Calibration of discrete-element-method
model parameters of bulk wheat for storage. Biosyst. Eng. 2020, 200, 298–314. [CrossRef]
21. Dai, L.; Sorkin, V.; Vastola, G.; Zhang, Y.W. Dynamics calibration of particle sandpile packing characteristics via discrete element
method. Powder Technol. 2019, 347, 220–226. [CrossRef]
22. Fang, M.; Yu, Z.H.; Zhang, W.J.; Cao, J.; Liu, W.H. Friction coefficient calibration of corn stalk particle mixtures using Plackett-
Burman design and response surface methodology. Powder Technol. 2022, 396, 731–742. [CrossRef]
23. Liao, Y.Y.; You, Y.; Wang, D.C.; Zhang, X.N.; Zhang, H.F.; Ma, W.P. Parameter calibration and experiment of discrete element
model for mixed seeds of oat and arrow pea. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 2022, 53, 14–22.
24. Tian, X.L.; Cong, X.; Qi, J.T.; Guo, H.; Li, M.; Fan, X.H. Parameter calibration of discrete element model for corn straw-soil mixture
in black soil areas. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 2021, 52, 100–108, 242.
25. Liang, R.Q.; Chen, X.G.; Zhang, B.C.; Wang, X.Z.; Kan, Z.; Meng, H.W. Calibration and test of the contact parameters for chopped
cotton stems based on discrete element method. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2022, 15, 1–8. [CrossRef]
26. Zhang, B.C.; Chen, X.G.; Liang, R.Q.; Wang, X.Z.; Meng, H.W.; Kan, Z. Calibration and test of contact parameters between
chopped cotton stalks using response surface methodology. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1851. [CrossRef]
27. Li, J.L.; Lu, Y.T.; Peng, X.B.; Jiang, P.; Zhang, B.C.; Zhang, L.Y.; Meng, H.W.; Kan, Z.; Wang, X.Z. Discrete element method for
simulation and calibration of cotton stalk contact parameters. BioResources 2023, 18, 400–416. [CrossRef]
28. Fang, W.Q.; Wang, X.Z.; Han, D.L.; Chen, X.G. Review of material parameter calibration method. Agriculture 2022, 12, 706.
[CrossRef]
29. Sheng, Y.; Tian, H.Q.; Wang, D.; Li, F.; Li, D.P.; Xiao, Z.Q.; Zhang, H.Q. Study on establishment of discrete element model of maize
root system and calibration of simulation parameters. J. Agric. Mech. Res. 2023, 45, 164–170.
30. Feng, B.; Sun, W.; Shi, L.R.; Sun, B.G.; Zhang, T.; Wu, J.M. Determination of restitution coefficient of potato tubers collision in
harvest and analysis of its influence factors. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2017, 33, 50–57.
31. Xia, R.; Li, B.; Wang, X.W.; Li, T.J.; Yang, Z.J. Measurement and calibration of the discrete element parameters of wet bulk coal.
Measurement 2019, 142, 84–95. [CrossRef]
32. Song, S.L.; Tang, Z.H.; Zheng, X.; Liu, J.B.; Meng, X.J.; Liang, Y.C. Calibration of the discrete element parameters for the soil
model of cotton field after plowing in Xinjiang of China. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2021, 37, 63–70.
33. Liang, R.Q.; Chen, X.G.; Jiang, P.; Zhang, B.C.; Meng, H.W.; Peng, X.B.; Kan, Z. Calibration of the simulation parameters of the
particulate materials in film mixed materials. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2020, 13, 29–36. [CrossRef]
34. Liao, Y.; Wang, Z.; Liao, Q.; Liang, F.; Liu, J. Calibration of discrete element parameters of fodder rape crop stem at flowering
stage. In Proceedings of the 2020 ASABE Annual International Virtual Meeting, St. Joseph, MI, USA, 13–15 July 2020.
35. Coetzee, C.J.; Els, D.N.J. Calibration of discrete element parameters and the modelling of silo discharge and bucket filling. Comput.
Electron Agric. 2009, 65, 198–212. [CrossRef]
36. Coetzee, C. Calibration of the discrete element method: Strategies for spherica land non-spherical particles. Powder Technol. 2020,
364, 851–878. [CrossRef]
37. Coetzee, C.J. Review: Calibration of the discrete element method. Powder Technol. 2017, 310, 104–142. [CrossRef]
Agriculture 2023, 13, 1344 17 of 17

38. Liu, Y.L.; Su, J.H.; Zhao, X.Q.; Chen, H.; Liu, C.; Liu, S.Q.; Wu, T.X. The study of vibrating screen efficiency based on discrete
element method. J. Northeast. Norm. Univ. 2018, 50, 78–83.
39. Tsuji, Y.; Tanaka, T.; Ishida, T. Lagrangian numerical simulation of plug flow of cohesionless particles in a horizontal pipe. Powder
Technol. 1992, 71, 239–250. [CrossRef]
40. Adilet, S.; Zhao, J.; Sayakhat, N.; Chen, J.; Nikolay, Z.; Bu, L.X.; Sugirbayeva, Z.; Hu, G.R.; Marat, M.; Wang, Z.W. Calibration
strategy to determine the interaction properties of fertilizer particles using two laboratory tests and DEM. Agriculture 2021, 11, 592.
[CrossRef]
41. Zhang, H.M.; Yan, L.M.; Chen, X.G.; Jiang, D.L.; Yang, S.M. Simulation and test of film surface cleaning roller of residual film
collector. Int. Agric. Eng. J. 2019, 28, 257–267.
42. Zhang, B.C.; Liang, R.Q.; Li, J.L.; Li, Y.P.; Meng, H.W.; Kan, Z. Test and analysis on friction characteristics of major cotton stalk
cultivars in Xinjiang. Agriculture 2022, 12, 906. [CrossRef]
43. Zhang, B.C.; Chen, X.G.; Liang, R.Q.; Li, J.L.; Wang, X.Z.; Meng, H.W.; Kan, Z. Cotton stalk restitution coefficient determination
tests based on the binocular high-speed camera technology. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2022, 15, 181–189. [CrossRef]
44. Shi, G.K.; Li, J.B.; Ding, L.P.; Zhang, Z.Y.; Ding, H.Z.; Li, N.; Kan, Z. Calibration and tests for the discrete element simulation
parameters of fallen jujube fruit. Agriculture 2022, 12, 38. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.