Submitted:
21 July 2026
Posted:
21 July 2026
You are already at the latest version
Abstract

Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Agronomic Analysis of Rice Cultivation
2.2. Overall Structure and Working Principle
2.3. Design of the Cutting Device and Flail Blade Arrangements
2.4. Kinematic and Force Analysis
2.5. Simulation Model Establishment
2.5.1. Particle Contact Mechanics and Fracture Model
2.5.2. Setting of Simulation Parameters
2.5.3. Experimental Design and Factor Levels for Hybrid Rice Male Parent Cutting
2.6. Field Test Methodology
3. Results
3.1. Simulation Results and Parameter Optimization
3.1.1. Experimental Design and Analysis
3.1.2. Response Surface Analysis of Interaction Effects
3.1.3. Optimization Analysis of Simulation Results
3.2. Field Test Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| ANOVA | Analysis of Variance |
| DEM | Discrete Element Method |
References
- Zheng, X.; Wei, F.; Cheng, C.; Qian, Q. A historical review of hybrid rice breeding. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2024, 66(3), 532–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- He, L.; Luo, H.; Duan, M.; Kong, L.; Tang, X. Mechanized hybrid rice seed production: Planting density, the flight height of an unmanned aerial vehicle, fertilizer application, and the row-ratio of parents. Agronomy 2022, 12(7), 1572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sims, L.; Pastor, J.; Lee, T.; Dewey, B. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and light effects on reproduction and fitness of wild rice. Botany 2012, 90(9), 876–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patnaik, G. P.; Thavaprakaash, N.; Sachin, S. S. Moisture stress at critical stages of rice (Oryza sativa) hampers grain yield and economics by inhibiting the growth and yield-forming traits. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2025, 95(11), 1345–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Zheng, H.; Tang, Q. Early harvesting improves seed vigour of hybrid rice seeds. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8(1), 11092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xia, Y.; Tang, N.; Hu, Y.; Li, D.; Li, S.; Bu, X.; Cao, M. A method for mechanized hybrid rice seed production using female sterile rice. Rice 2019, 12(1), 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liao, C.; Yan, W.; Chen, Z.; Xie, G.; Deng, X. W.; Tang, X. Innovation and development of the third-generation hybrid rice technology. Crop J. 2021, 9(3), 693–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, Q.; Zhou, R.; Yu, H.; Lin, C. X.; Teng, B.; Song, F. S.; Ni, D. H. A novel labor-saving strategy for hybrid rice seed production. 2026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Min, S. H. I.; Paudel, K. P. Mechanization and efficiency in rice production in China. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20(7), 1996–2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, K.; Li, Y. Genetic editing of grain size genes enables fully mechanized hybrid rice breeding. Nat. Plants 2024, 10(6), 844–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, R.; Cheng, W.; Liu, H.; Hou, D.; Zhong, X.; Huang, Z.; Yin, N. Automatic identification of sea rice grains in complex field environment based on deep learning. Agriculture 2024, 14(7), 1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, R.; Liu, W.; Liu, H.; Liu, Q.; Zhang, J.; Hou, M. Non-Destructive Measurement of Rice Spikelet Size Based on Panicle Structure Using Deep Learning Method. Agronomy 2024, 14(10), 2398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, M.; Chen, G.; Chen, J.; Cao, F.; Li, Z.; Chen, Y.; Zou, Y. Yield performance of inbred rice grown under labor-saving crop establishment methods. Agron. J. 2021, 113(6), 5126–5132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sakran, R. M.; Ghazy, M. I.; Gaballah, M. M.; Hussein, F. A.; Aamer, S. M.; Ghazy, H. A.; Abdelghany, A. M. Genetic variability in physiological and agronomic traits of newly developed rice lines under well-watered and water-deficit conditions. BMC Plant Biol. 2025, 25(1), 1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- He, Y.; Zhou, J.; Sun, J.; Jia, H.; Liang, Z.; Awuah, E. An adaptive control system for path tracking of crawler combine harvester based on paddy ground conditions identification. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2023, 210, 107948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tu, T.; Luo, X.; Hu, L.; Chung, S. O.; He, J.; Zhao, R.; Wu, P. Methods and experiments for analysing hard-bottom layer changes and monitoring wheel sink depth in paddy fields. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2025, 238, 110760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boroujeni, F. M.; Maleki, A. Fractal analysis of noise signals of Sampo and John Deere combine harvesters in operational conditions. Arch. Acoust. 2019, 44(1). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandey, H. S.; Tiwari, G. S.; Sharma, A. K. Design and development of an e-powered inter row weeder for small farm mechanization: e-powered inter row weeder for small farm mechanization. J. Sci. Ind. Res. (JSIR) 2023, 82(06), 671–682. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, H.; Ai, Y.; Yang, N.; Deng, Y.; Lin, Z.; Li, S.; Li, Z.; Zhou, R. An intelligent hybrid rice male parent pulverizing robot. China Patent No. CN 214228964 U, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, K.; Ning, E.; Zhao, M.; Hu, G.; Wei, Z.; Jia, J. Virtual design and test of 9QS8 silage harvester based on Solidworks. J. Agric. Mech. Res. 2009, (11), 137–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Zhao, W.; Liu, X.; Dai, F.; Shi, R.; Zhang, K.; Liang, J. The Design and Testing of a Combined Operation Machine for Corn Straw Crushing and Residual Film Recycling. Agriculture 2025, 15(9), 916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Pan, J.; Xiao, Q.; You, Z.; Li, J.; Gao, X.; Xie, S. Design of a deviation information detection mechanism for sugar beet harvesters based on agricultural machinery and agronomy integration. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2026, 19(1), 120–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deshmukh, M.; Ghorade, R. B.; Thakare, S. K. Effect of Cutting Blade Parameters on Harvesting of Stalks. AMA-Agric. Mech. ASIA Afr. Lat. Am. 2023, 54(2). [Google Scholar]
- Chen, G.; Wang, Q.; Li, H.; He, J.; Wang, X.; Zhang, X.; He, D. Experimental research on vertical straw cleaning and soil tillage device based on Soil-Straw composite model. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2024, 216, 108510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patwa, A.; Ambrose, R. K.; Casada, M. E. Discrete element method as an approach to model the wheat milling process. Powder Technol. 2016, 302, 350–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leblicq, T.; Smeets, B.; Vanmaercke, S.; Ramon, H.; Saeys, W. A discrete element approach for modelling bendable crop stems. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2016, 124, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Li, Y.; Sun, W.; Zhang, H.; Liu, S.; Wang, J.; Song, Q. Discrete Element Method-Based Simulation for Rice Straw Comminution and Device of Parameter Optimization. Appl. Sci. 2026, 16(4), 1934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, H.; Deng, J.; Deng, Y.; Chen, T.; Wang, G.; Sun, Z.; Guo, H. Contact parameter analysis and calibration in discrete element simulation of rice straw. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2021, 14(4), 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, Y.; Song, M.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhu, J.; Peng, H. Effect of Stubble Height on Cadmium Removal Potential of Removed Straw. Sustainability 2025, 17(15), 7123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, X.; Yang, G.; Zhang, Z.; Guo, Y.; Zheng, C.; Xu, L.; Peng, S. Cutting height of main crop has profound effects on cadmium but not arsenic concentration of ratoon crop in rice. Field Crops Res. 2023, 302, 109085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]










| Parameter | Unit | Value |
| Overall dimensions | mm | 1900 × 550 × 900 |
| Machine weight | kg | 240 |
| Rated power | kW | 3.6 |
| Number of male parent rows cut | Row | 1~2 |
| Working efficiency | hm²·h⁻¹ | 0.4~0.6 |
| Parameter | Unit | Value |
| Poisson's ratio of rice male parent | 0.35 | |
| Shear modulus of rice stalk | Pa | 1.8×106 |
| Density of rice male parent | kg·m−3 | 215 |
| Poisson's ratio of 65Mn steel | 0.3 | |
| Shear modulus of 65Mn steel | Pa | 7.8×1010 |
| Density of 65Mn steel | kg·m−3 | 7850 |
| Stalk-stalk restitution coefficient | 0.28 | |
| Static friction coefficient between rice stalks | 0.38 | |
| Dynamic friction coefficient between rice stalks | 0.30 | |
| Stalk-steel restitution coefficient | 0.37 | |
| Static friction coefficient between rice stalk and 65Mn steel | 0.34 | |
| Dynamic friction coefficient between rice stalk and 65Mn steel | 0.23 |
| Level |
Forward speed m·s-1 |
Flail blade speed r·min-1 |
Blade combination arrangement |
| −1 | 0.4 | 1500 | a. Uniform straight blade type |
| 0 | 0.5 | 1600 | b. Symmetrical Y-type |
| 1 | 0.6 | 1700 | c. Straight and symmetrical Y-type |
| No. | Forward speed(m·s-1) | Flail blade speed(r·min-1) | Blade combination arrangement | Cutting rate (%) |
| 1 | 0.4 | 1700 | a | 95.00 |
| 2 | 0.4 | 1700 | b | 96.33 |
| 3 | 0.4 | 1700 | c | 97.67 |
| 4 | 0.6 | 1700 | c | 93.56 |
| 5 | 0.4 | 1500 | a | 91.11 |
| 6 | 0.4 | 1600 | a | 93.00 |
| 7 | 0.5 | 1500 | a | 90.00 |
| 8 | 0.5 | 1500 | b | 91.22 |
| 9 | 0.5 | 1500 | c | 92.44 |
| 10 | 0.5 | 1600 | a | 91.44 |
| 11 | 0.4 | 1600 | b | 94.33 |
| 12 | 0.5 | 1600 | b | 92.67 |
| 13 | 0.6 | 1600 | a | 90.00 |
| 14 | 0.6 | 1700 | a | 91.22 |
| 15 | 0.5 | 1600 | c | 93.89 |
| 16 | 0.6 | 1700 | b | 92.33 |
| 17 | 0.4 | 1500 | b | 92.33 |
| 18 | 0.6 | 1600 | c | 92.11 |
| 19 | 0.5 | 1700 | a | 92.89 |
| 20 | 0.5 | 1700 | b | 94.11 |
| 21 | 0.5 | 1700 | c | 95.33 |
| 22 | 0.6 | 1600 | b | 91.00 |
| 23 | 0.6 | 1500 | a | 88.78 |
| 24 | 0.4 | 1600 | c | 95.67 |
| 25 | 0.4 | 1500 | c | 93.67 |
| 26 | 0.6 | 1500 | b | 89.78 |
| 27 | 0.6 | 1500 | c | 90.89 |
| No. | Forward speed(m·s-1) | Flail blade speed(r·min-1) | Blade combination arrangement |
| K1j | 849.11 | 820.22 | 823.44 |
| K2j | 833.99 | 834.11 | 834.1 |
| K3j | 819.67 | 848.44 | 845.23 |
| k1j | 94.35 | 91.14 | 91.49 |
| k2j | 92.67 | 92.68 | 92.68 |
| k3j | 91.07 | 94.27 | 93.91 |
| Rj | 3.28 | 3.13 | 2.42 |
| Order of significance | A>B>C | ||
| Optimal level | A1,B3,C3 | ||
| Variance Source | Sum of Squares | Degree of Freedom | Mean Square | F-Value | p-Value |
| Model | 118.79 | 6 | 19.80 | 219.07 | <0.0001 |
| A | 48.15 | 1 | 48.15 | 532.79 | <0.0001 |
| B | 44.24 | 1 | 44.24 | 489.55 | <0.0001 |
| C | 26.38 | 1 | 26.38 | 291.87 | <0.0001 |
| A2 | 0.0119 | 1 | 0.0119 | 0.1311 | 0.7211 |
| B2 | 0.0036 | 1 | 0.0036 | 0.0397 | 0.8441 |
| C2 | 0.0041 | 1 | 0.0041 | 0.0453 | 0.8337 |
| Residual | 1.81 | 20 | 0.0904 | — | — |
| Cor Total | 120.60 | 26 | — | — | — |
| Variance Source | Sum of Squares | Degree of Freedom | Mean Square | F-Value | p-Value |
| Model | 120.42 | 6 | 20.07 | 2271.91 | <0.0001 |
| A | 48.15 | 1 | 48.15 | 5450.54 | <0.0001 |
| B | 44.24 | 1 | 44.24 | 5008.16 | <0.0001 |
| C | 26.38 | 1 | 26.38 | 2985.92 | <0.0001 |
| AB | 1.49 | 1 | 1.49 | 168.79 | <0.0001 |
| AC | 0.1496 | 1 | 0.1496 | 16.94 | 0.0005 |
| BC | 0.0096 | 1 | 0.0096 | 1.09 | 0.3088 |
| Residual | 20 | 0.0088 | — | — | — |
| Cor Total | 26 | — | — | — | — |
| No. |
Forward speed (m·s-1) |
Flail blade speed (r·min-1) |
Blade combination arrangement | Cutting rate(%) |
| 1 | 0.4 | 1700 | c | 91.47 |
| 2 | 0.4 | 1700 | c | 90.07 |
| 3 | 0.4 | 1700 | c | 91.73 |
| 4 | 0.4 | 1700 | c | 92.27 |
| 5 | 0.4 | 1700 | c | 91.40 |
| k | — | — | — | 91.39 |
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. |
© 2026 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).