Discrete element method‐based models for the consolidation of particle packings in paper‐coating applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper concerns the use of the discrete element method (DEM) for the three‐dimensional simulation of the consolidation of particle packings in a surrounding liquid such as those in paper‐coating applications. The accuracy of DEM is first assessed using X‐ray microtomography experiments in the case of polydisperse particle distributions. It is shown that simulations that only account for gravitational and contact forces are in excellent agreement with literature data. However, paper‐coating applications involve more complex mechanisms governing the transient particle/pigment consolidation: compression effects during metering and calendering operations, and drag forces during the drainage of the liquid into the basesheet. To simulate the deposition of particles on the basesheet under drainage conditions more realistically, three modelling strategies are considered in this work, which respectively take into account: (1) gravity, (2) mechanical compression and (3) uniform drag. The results show that the first two strategies yield stratified structures and similar bulk porosities, and that the use of a uniform drag leads to significant changes in the particle dynamics and packing properties. Finally, exploratory results with a model for the two‐way coupling between the dynamics of the liquid and solid phases reveal its potential for predicting the compression of wet granular media. Copyright © 2010 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".