pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.04878 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · ❄️ cond-mat.soft · physics.flu-dyn

Recognition: unknown

Understanding the Dynamics of Evaporation-Driven Colloidal Self-Assembly

Abhinav Naga, Halim Kusumaatmaja, Junyu Yang, Xitong Zhang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 16:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.soft physics.flu-dyn
keywords evaporation-driven self-assemblycolloidal clustersinterparticle frictionlattice Boltzmann methoddiscrete element methodcapillary forcespacking configurationsregime diagram
0
0 comments X

The pith

Interparticle friction disproportionately determines the final structure of evaporating colloidal clusters even when smaller than other forces.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines how spherical colloidal particles pack into clusters as surrounding liquid evaporates, using simulations that combine fluid flow calculations with particle motion tracking. It builds a map of outcomes across different evaporation speeds, friction levels between particles, and total particle counts, showing three main cluster types: open, closed, and those with minimal moment of inertia. A central result is that friction between particles, though weaker than capillary pulling or fluid drag forces, strongly steers the assembly by limiting how particles can slide and rearrange during drying. This matters for creating specific cluster shapes needed in photonic crystals and meta-materials, where the path of assembly influences the end result as much as the final forces do.

Core claim

By coupling lattice Boltzmann and discrete element methods, the authors construct a regime diagram across evaporation rates, interparticle friction coefficients, and particle numbers that identifies conditions for open, closed, and minimal-moment-of-inertia colloidal cluster configurations. Analysis of the competing capillary, hydrodynamic, normal, and friction forces shows that interparticle friction exerts a disproportionately strong influence on the final packing outcome despite its smaller magnitude, and that dynamic trajectories during evaporation further shape the result.

What carries the argument

The regime diagram that classifies cluster configurations (open, closed, minimal moment of inertia) according to evaporation rate, friction coefficient, and particle number, produced by tracking the competition among capillary, hydrodynamic, normal contact, and friction forces in coupled fluid-particle simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The coupled lattice Boltzmann and discrete element simulations accurately reproduce real fluid-particle interactions, capillary forces, and friction effects during evaporation without major numerical artifacts or missing physics.

What would settle it

Laboratory experiments that vary evaporation rate and particle surface friction while counting the resulting open, closed, or minimal-inertia cluster fractions and checking whether the observed boundaries match the simulated regime diagram.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04878 by Abhinav Naga, Halim Kusumaatmaja, Junyu Yang, Xitong Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic illustration of evaporation-driven packing. view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Packing regime diagram for N = 6. 507 (a) Three typical final packing configurations obtained in simulations. 508 (b) Regime diagram of packing types as a function of capillary number Ca and friction coefficient 509 µ. 510 (c)-(e) Probability distributions of distinct packing structures under different conditions highlighted 511 in panel (b). 512 15 view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Force evolution on a selected particle (marked in red) during view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Representative initial particle distributions for view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Force evolution on a selected particle (marked in red) during view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Complex colloidal cluster morphologies are desirable for the fabrication of advanced materials, such as photonic crystals and meta-materials, and can be formed through evaporation-driven packing. By coupling lattice Boltzmann and discrete element methods, here we elucidate the rich interplay between fluid and particle dynamics during evaporation-driven self-assembly of spherical colloidal particles. We construct a regime diagram for a wide range of evaporation rates, interparticle friction coefficients, and particle numbers, identifying parameter regimes for open, closed, and minimal moment of inertia cluster configurations. Analyzing the competition between capillary, hydrodynamic, normal, and friction forces, we show that interparticle friction can exert a disproportionately strong influence on the final packing outcome despite being considerably smaller in magnitude than other forces at play. Our simulation results further highlight the potential for tuning colloidal cluster configurations via their dynamic trajectories.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper couples lattice Boltzmann and discrete element methods to simulate evaporation-driven self-assembly of spherical colloidal particles. It constructs a regime diagram over ranges of evaporation rates, interparticle friction coefficients, and particle numbers, classifying outcomes into open, closed, and minimal-moment-of-inertia clusters. The central claim is that interparticle friction exerts a disproportionately strong influence on final morphology despite its small magnitude relative to capillary, hydrodynamic, and normal forces, by steering dynamic trajectories during assembly.

Significance. If the LB-DEM force balances are accurate, the regime diagram and trajectory-based analysis would offer useful guidance for tuning colloidal cluster morphologies in applications such as photonic crystals. The emphasis on dynamic competition among forces rather than static equilibrium is a conceptual strength. However, the purely numerical nature of the study, without benchmarks or experiments, limits its immediate significance for the field.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods and Results] The manuscript provides no convergence tests, error analysis, or direct comparisons to analytic limits for evaporating droplets or capillary/hydrodynamic interactions (e.g., known single-particle or few-particle cases). This is load-bearing for the claim that friction's small magnitude still controls outcomes, as discretization or coupling artifacts in LB-DEM could artificially amplify friction-like effects.
  2. [Methods] Details on the implementation of capillary forces (diffuse interface or effective potential), hydrodynamic coupling, and how relative force magnitudes are computed and compared are insufficient. Without these, the analysis of force competition and the conclusion that friction is 'disproportionately strong' cannot be rigorously evaluated.
  3. [Results] The criteria used to classify clusters as open, closed, or minimal-MOI in the regime diagram are not quantitatively defined (e.g., via specific packing metrics, coordination numbers, or MOI thresholds). This undermines assessment of the robustness of the identified parameter regimes.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction would benefit from explicit numerical ranges for the evaporation rates, friction coefficients, and particle numbers explored in the sweeps.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive comments, which highlight important aspects of numerical validation and clarity in our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the work.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods and Results] The manuscript provides no convergence tests, error analysis, or direct comparisons to analytic limits for evaporating droplets or capillary/hydrodynamic interactions (e.g., known single-particle or few-particle cases). This is load-bearing for the claim that friction's small magnitude still controls outcomes, as discretization or coupling artifacts in LB-DEM could artificially amplify friction-like effects.

    Authors: We agree that systematic validation is essential to support the force-balance claims. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection (or appendix) presenting grid-convergence and time-step convergence tests for representative evaporation rates and particle numbers. We will also include direct comparisons to analytic limits: the evaporation rate of an isolated droplet (following the d^{2}-law) and the capillary interaction force between two particles at fixed separation. These benchmarks will be used to quantify numerical error and confirm that observed friction effects are not discretization artifacts. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Details on the implementation of capillary forces (diffuse interface or effective potential), hydrodynamic coupling, and how relative force magnitudes are computed and compared are insufficient. Without these, the analysis of force competition and the conclusion that friction is 'disproportionately strong' cannot be rigorously evaluated.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for greater methodological transparency. The revised Methods section will explicitly state that capillary forces are implemented via an effective potential derived from the diffuse-interface LB model, with the precise functional form and cutoff distance provided. Hydrodynamic coupling follows the standard momentum-exchange scheme between LB fluid nodes and DEM particles. Force-magnitude analysis will be described in detail: at each time step we compute the vector sum of capillary, hydrodynamic, normal-contact, and friction forces on every particle, then report time-averaged magnitudes normalized by the instantaneous capillary force scale during the assembly trajectory. These additions will allow readers to reproduce and evaluate the reported force competition. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] The criteria used to classify clusters as open, closed, or minimal-MOI in the regime diagram are not quantitatively defined (e.g., via specific packing metrics, coordination numbers, or MOI thresholds). This undermines assessment of the robustness of the identified parameter regimes.

    Authors: We thank the referee for identifying this ambiguity. In the revised manuscript we will define the classification criteria quantitatively in the caption of the regime diagram and in a new paragraph of the Results section. Open clusters are those with average coordination number < 4 and normalized moment of inertia > 1.2; closed clusters satisfy average coordination number > 6; minimal-MOI clusters are those whose moment of inertia lies within 5 % of the theoretical minimum for the given particle number (computed from the convex hull). These thresholds were chosen after inspecting the bimodal distributions of the metrics across all simulated trajectories and will be accompanied by the exact formulas used. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: numerical regime diagram generated from independent simulation

full rationale

The paper performs parameter-sweep simulations with coupled LB-DEM to map regimes of cluster morphology as functions of evaporation rate, friction coefficient, and particle number. Central claims about relative force magnitudes and friction's influence emerge directly as outputs of the numerical integration rather than from any equation or prediction that reduces by construction to fitted parameters, self-citations, or ansatzes internal to the work. No load-bearing derivation step equates a result to its own input; the study is self-contained against external benchmarks of the method.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the standard modeling assumptions of the lattice Boltzmann method for evaporating fluids and the discrete element method for particle contacts, with no new physical entities postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • evaporation rate
    Varied parametrically to delineate regimes; not fitted to match a target outcome.
  • interparticle friction coefficient
    Varied parametrically to delineate regimes; not fitted to match a target outcome.
  • particle number
    Varied parametrically to delineate regimes; not fitted to match a target outcome.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Lattice Boltzmann method accurately captures hydrodynamic and capillary forces during evaporation.
    Invoked by the choice of fluid solver in the coupled simulation.
  • domain assumption Discrete element method with friction and normal forces correctly represents particle-particle interactions.
    Invoked by the choice of particle solver in the coupled simulation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5443 in / 1407 out tokens · 36328 ms · 2026-05-08T16:23:07.445818+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Results for other particle numbers (N= 5,7,8) are provided in112 Figures S3– S5

    For each point in the diagram, we compile statistics from 50 realizations with distinct initial111 particle distributions (Figure S2). Results for other particle numbers (N= 5,7,8) are provided in112 Figures S3– S5. AcrossN, the regime diagrams share the same qualitative structure; differences113 arise mainly in the positions of the boundaries. For ease o...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17913776475 2022

  2. [2]

    Poon, W. (2004). Colloids as big atoms. Science304, 830–831.536

    2004

  3. [3]

    van Blaaderen, A. (2003). Chemistry: Colloidal molecules and beyond. Science301, 470–537

    2003

  4. [4]

    Hou, S., Bai, L., Lu, D., and Duan, H. (2023). Interfacial colloidal self-assembly for functional539 materials. Accounts of Chemical Research56, 740–751.540

    2023

  5. [5]

    From colloidal particles to photonic crystals: advances in self-assembly and their542 emerging applications

    Cai, Z., Li, Z., Ravaine, S., He, M., Song, Y ., Yin, Y ., Zheng, H., Teng, J., and Zhang, A.541 (2021). From colloidal particles to photonic crystals: advances in self-assembly and their542 emerging applications. Chemical Society Reviews50, 5898–5951.543

    2021

  6. [6]

    Cui, Y ., Zhu, H., Cai, J., and Qiu, H. (2021). Self-regulated co-assembly of soft and hard544 nanoparticles. Nature Communications12, 5682. 545

    2021

  7. [7]

    Lyu, D., Xu, W., and Wang, Y . (2022). Low-symmetry mof-based patchy colloids and their546 precise linking via site-selective liquid bridging to form supra-colloidal and supra-framework547 architectures. Angewandte Chemie134, e202115076. 548

    2022

  8. [8]

    (2022).549 Self-assembly dynamics of reconfigurable colloidal molecules

    Chakraborty, I., Pearce, D.J., Verweij, R.W., Matysik, S.C., Giomi, L., and Kraft, D.J. (2022).549 Self-assembly dynamics of reconfigurable colloidal molecules. ACS nano16, 2471–2480.550

    2022

  9. [9]

    Zaibudeen, A., and Bandyopadhyay, R. (2021). Dc field coupled evaporation of a sessile551 gold nanofluid droplet. Soft Matter17, 10294–10300. 552

    2021

  10. [10]

    Kang, N., Zhu, J., Zhang, X., Wang, H., and Zhang, Z. (2022). Reconfiguring self-assembly553 of photoresponsive hybrid colloids. Journal of the American Chemical Society144, 4754–554

    2022

  11. [11]

    Grzelczak, M., Vermant, J., Furst, E.M., and Liz-Marzán, L.M. (2010). Directed self-556 assembly of nanoparticles. ACS nano4, 3591–3605. 557

    2010

  12. [12]

    Vialetto, J., Gaichies, T., Rudiuk, S., Morel, M., and Baigl, D. (2024). Versatile deposition558 of complex colloidal assemblies from the evaporation of hanging drops. Advanced Science559 11, 2307893. 560

    2024

  13. [13]

    Rao, A.B., Shaw, J., Neophytou, A., Morphew, D., Sciortino, F ., Johnston, R.L., and561 Chakrabarti, D. (2020). Leveraging hierarchical self-assembly pathways for realizing col-562 loidal photonic crystals. ACS nano14, 5348–5359. 563

    2020

  14. [14]

    Kim, Y .J., Kim, J.H., Jo, I.S., Pine, D.J., Sacanna, S., and Yi, G.R. (2021). Patchy colloidal564 clusters with broken symmetry. Journal of the American Chemical Society143, 13175–565 13183. 566

    2021

  15. [15]

    Manoharan, V.N., Elsesser, M.T., and Pine, D.J. (2003). Dense packing and symmetry in567 small clusters of microspheres. Science301, 483–487. 568

    2003

  16. [16]

    Meng, G., Arkus, N., Brenner, M.P ., and Manoharan, V.N. (2010). The free-energy land-569 scape of clusters of attractive hard spheres. Science327, 560–563.570

    2010

  17. [17]

    Hueckel, T., Hocky, G.M., and Sacanna, S. (2021). Total synthesis of colloidal matter. Nature571 Reviews Materials6, 1053–1069. 572 19

    2021

  18. [18]

    Avvisati, G., Dasgupta, T., and Dijkstra, M. (2017). Fabrication of colloidal laves phases via573 hard tetramers and hard spheres: Bulk phase diagram and sedimentation behavior. ACS574 nano11, 7702–7709. 575

    2017

  19. [19]

    Marson, R.L., Teich, E.G., Dshemuchadse, J., Glotzer, S.C., and Larson, R.G. (2019). Com-576 putational self-assembly of colloidal crystals from platonic polyhedral sphere clusters. Soft577 Matter15, 6288–6299. 578

    2019

  20. [20]

    Beneduce, C., Sciortino, F ., Sulc, P ., and Russo, J. (2023). Engineering azeotropy to opti-579 mize the self-assembly of colloidal mixtures. ACS nano17, 24841–24853.580

    2023

  21. [21]

    Wagner, C.S., Fischer, B., May, M., and Wittemann, A. (2010). Templated assembly of581 polymer particles into mesoscopic clusters with well-defined configurations. Colloid and582 Polymer Science288, 487–498. 583

    2010

  22. [22]

    Zargartalebi, H., Hejazi, S.H., and Sanati-Nezhad, A. (2022). Self-assembly of highly or-584 dered micro-and nanoparticle deposits. Nature Communications13, 3085.585

    2022

  23. [23]

    Lauga, E., and Brenner, M.P . (2004). Evaporation-driven assembly of colloidal particles.586 Physical review letters93, 238301. 587

    2004

  24. [24]

    Arkus, N., Manoharan, V.N., and Brenner, M.P . (2009). Minimal energy clusters of hard588 spheres with short range attractions. Physical review letters103, 118303.589

    2009

  25. [25]

    Li, Q., Jonas, U., Zhao, X., and Kappl, M. (2008). The forces at work in colloidal self-590 assembly: a review on fundamental interactions between colloidal particles. Asia-Pacific591 Journal of Chemical Engineering3, 255–268. 592

    2008

  26. [26]

    Y ethiraj, A. (2007). Tunable colloids: control of colloidal phase transitions with tunable inter-593 actions. Soft Matter3, 1099–1115. 594

    2007

  27. [27]

    Cho, Y .S., Yi, G.R., Chung, Y .S., Park, S.B., and Y ang, S.M. (2007). Complex colloidal595 microclusters from aerosol droplets. Langmuir23, 12079–12085.596

    2007

  28. [28]

    Zhou, H., Pujales-Paradela, R., Groppe, P ., Wintzheimer, S., and Mandel, K. (2022). Tuning597 the morphology of spray-dried supraparticles: Effects of building block size and concentra-598 tion. Particle & Particle Systems Characterization39, 2200127.599

    2022

  29. [29]

    Holtzman, R., Szulczewski, M.L., and Juanes, R. (2012). Capillary fracturing in granular600 media. Physical review letters108, 264504. 601

    2012

  30. [30]

    Badetti, M., Fall, A., Chevoir, F ., and Roux, J.N. (2018). Shear strength of wet granular602 materials: Macroscopic cohesion and effective stress: Discrete numerical simulations, con-603 fronted to experimental measurements. The European Physical Journal E41, 1–16.604

    2018

  31. [31]

    Vivacqua, V., López, A., Hammond, R., and Ghadiri, M. (2019). Dem analysis of the effect605 of particle shape, cohesion and strain rate on powder rheometry. Powder Technology342,606 653–663. 607

    2019

  32. [32]

    Comtet, J., Chatté, G., Nigues, A., Bocquet, L., Siria, A., and Colin, A. (2017). Pairwise608 frictional profile between particles determines discontinuous shear thickening transition in609 non-colloidal suspensions. Nature communications8, 15633.610

    2017

  33. [33]

    Xie, Q., and Harting, J. (2018). From dot to ring: the role of friction in the deposition pattern611 of a drying colloidal suspension droplet. Langmuir34, 5303–5311.612 20

    2018

  34. [34]

    Naga, A., Zhang, X., Y ang, J., and Kusumaatmaja, H. (2025). Modeling droplet-particle613 interactions on solid surfaces by coupling the lattice boltzmann and discrete element meth-614 ods. . URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10171.arXiv:2505.10171.615

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Zhao, Y ., Zhao, Y ., Wang, D., Zheng, H., Chakraborty, B., and Socolar, J.E. (2022). Ultra-616 stable shear-jammed granular material. Physical Review X12, 031021.617

    2022

  36. [36]

    Katiyar, P ., and Singh, J.K. (2019). Evaporation induced self-assembly of different shapes618 and sizes of nanoparticles: A molecular dynamics study. The Journal of chemical physics619

    2019

  37. [37]

    Flavell, W., Neophytou, A., Demetriadou, A., Albrecht, T., and Chakrabarti, D. (2023). Pro-621 grammed self-assembly of single colloidal gyroids for chiral photonic crystals. Advanced622 Materials35, 2211197. 623

    2023

  38. [38]

    Zhang, X., Liu, H., and Zhang, J. (2020). A new capillary force model implemented in lattice624 boltzmann method for gas–liquid–solid three-phase flows. Physics of Fluids32.625

    2020

  39. [39]

    Guzowski, J., and Garstecki, P . (2015). Droplet clusters: Exploring the phase space of soft626 mesoscale atoms. Physical review letters114, 188302. 627

    2015

  40. [40]

    Ameta, R., and Ameta, S.C. (2016). Chemical Applications of Symmetry and Group Theory.628 Apple Academic Press. 629

    2016

  41. [41]

    Marín-Aguilar, S., Camerin, F ., van der Ham, S., Feasson, A., Vutukuri, H.R., and Dijkstra,630 M. (2023). A colloidal viewpoint on the sausage catastrophe and the finite sphere packing631 problem. Nature communications14, 7896. 632

    2023

  42. [42]

    Nist chemistry webbook.https://webbook.nist.gov/633 chemistry/

    NIST Chemistry WebBook (2024). Nist chemistry webbook.https://webbook.nist.gov/633 chemistry/. . National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg MD, USA.634

    2024

  43. [43]

    B ˛ ak, A., and Podgórska, W. (2016). Interfacial and surface tensions of toluene/water and635 air/water systems with nonionic surfactants tween 20 and tween 80. Colloids and Surfaces636 A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects504, 414–425.637

    2016

  44. [44]

    Ni, L., Yu, C., Wei, Q., Liu, D., and Qiu, J. (2022). Pickering emulsion catalysis: interfa-638 cial chemistry, catalyst design, challenges, and perspectives. Angewandte Chemie134,639 e202115885. 640

    2022

  45. [45]

    Bianchi, E., Likos, C.N., and Kahl, G. (2013). Self-assembly of heterogeneously charged641 particles under confinement. ACS nano7, 4657–4667. 642

    2013

  46. [46]

    Li, W., Zhang, C., and Wang, Y . (2024). Evaporative self-assembly in colloidal droplets:643 Emergence of ordered structures from complex fluids. Advances in Colloid and Interface644 Science333, 103286. 645

    2024

  47. [47]

    Butt, H.J., and Kappl, M. (2018). Surface and interfacial forces. John Wiley & Sons.646

    2018

  48. [48]

    Israelachvili, J.N. (2011). Intermolecular and surface forces. Academic press.647

    2011

  49. [49]

    Scherrer, S., Ramakrishna, S.N., Niggel, V., Hsu, C.P ., Style, R.W., Spencer, N.D., and Isa,648 L. (2025). Characterizing sliding and rolling contacts between single particles. Proceedings649 of the National Academy of Sciences122, e2411414122.650 21

    2025

  50. [50]

    Lahiri, S.K., and Golovin, K. (2023). Low-friction coatings reduce microplastic release from651 textiles. NATURE PORTFOLIO HEIDELBERGER PLATZ 3, BERLIN, 14197, GERMANY .652

    2023

  51. [51]

    Qin, C., Y ang, H., Lu, Y ., Li, B., Ma, S., Ma, Y ., and Zhou, F . (2025). Tribology in nature:653 Inspirations for advanced lubrication materials. Advanced Materials pp. 2420626.654

    2025

  52. [52]

    Hayler, H.J., Groves, T.S., Guerrini, A., Southam, A., Zheng, W., and Perkin, S. (2024). The655 surface force balance: direct measurement of interactions in fluids and soft matter. Reports656 on Progress in Physics87, 046601. 657

    2024

  53. [53]

    Butt, H.J., Cappella, B., and Kappl, M. (2005). Force measurements with the atomic force658 microscope: Technique, interpretation and applications. Surface science reports59, 1–152.659

    2005

  54. [54]

    Liang, H., Wang, R., Wei, Y ., and Xu, J. (2023). Lattice boltzmann method for interface660 capturing. Physical Review E107, 025302. 661

    2023

  55. [55]

    Sugimoto, M., Sawada, Y ., Kaneda, M., and Suga, K. (2021). Consistent evaporation for-662 mulation for the phase-field lattice boltzmann method. Physical Review E103, 053307.663

    2021

  56. [56]

    Czelusniak, L.E., Bingert, T.N., Simonis, S., Wagner, A.J., and Krause, M.J. (2025). An-664 alytical solution for dynamic evaporation of liquid in isothermal condition. arXiv preprint665 arXiv:2506.02270. 666

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Y ang, J., Lei, T., Wang, G., Xu, Q., Chen, J., and Luo, K.H. (2023). Lattice boltzmann667 modelling of salt precipitation during brine evaporation. Advances in Water Resources180,668 104542. 669

    2023

  58. [58]

    Y ang, J. (2025). Junyuyanged/lbm-dem-code: Lbm-dem. Zenodo. URL:https://doi.org/670 10.5281/zenodo.17913776. doi:10.5281/zenodo.17913776.671 22

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17913776 2025