## 3 Results and Discussion
### Optimization of Internal Binding Parameters of Corn Straw
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Serial Number**} & \(\mathbf{X_{\text{g}}}\)/(\(\mathbf{N}\cdot\mathbf{m}^{-1}\)) & \(\mathbf{X_{\text{g}}}\)/(\(\mathbf{N}\cdot\mathbf{m}^{-1}\)) & \(\mathbf{X_{\text{g}}}\)/MPa & \(\mathbf{X_{\text{g}}}\)/MPa & **Destructive Power (F\({}_{2}\))/N** \\ \hline \(1\) & \(5.6\times 10^{8}\) & \(4.0\times 10^{8}\) & \(35\) & \(0.45\) & \(34.1\) \\ \(2\) & \(3.8\times 10^{8}\) & \(3.0\times 10^{8}\) & \(25\) & \(0.55\) & \(30.1\) \\ \(3\) & \(7.4\times 10^{8}\) & \(3.0\times 10^{8}\) & \(45\) & \(0.35\) & \(35.63\) \\ \(4\) & \(7.4\times 10^{8}\) & \(3.0\times 10^{8}\) & \(25\) & \(0.55\) & \(28.7\) \\ \(5\) & \(3.8\times 10^{8}\) & \(5.0\times 10^{8}\) & \(25\) & \(0.55\) & \(22.89\) \\ \(6\) & \(5.6\times 10^{8}\) & \(4.0\times 10^{8}\) & \(15\) & \(0.45\) & \(28.9\) \\ \(7\) & \(2\times 10^{8}\) & \(4.0\times 10^{8}\) & \(35\) & \(0.45\) & \(24.62\) \\ \(8\) & \(3.8\times 10^{8}\) & \(3.0\times 10^{8}\) & \(45\) & \(0.55\) & \(30.58\) \\ \(9\) & \(9.2\times 10^{8}\) & \(4.0\times 10^{8}\) & \(35\) & \(0.45\) & \(40.8\) \\ \(10\) & \(5.6\times 10^{8}\) & \(4.0\times 10^{8}\) & \(35\) & \(0.45\) & \(38.2\) \\ \(11\) & \(7.4\times 10^{8}\) & \(3.0\times 10^{8}\) & \(45\) & \(0.55\) & \(26.81\) \\ \(12\) & \(5.6\times 10^{8}\) & \(4.0\times 10^{8}\) & \(35\) & \(0.45\) & \(38.45\) \\ \(13\) & \(5.6\times 10^{8}\) & \(4.0\times 10^{8}\) & \(35\) & \(0.45\) & \(38.45\) \\ \(14\) & \(5.6\times 10^{8}\) & \(4.0\times 10^{8}\) & \(35\) & \(0.65\) & \(40.9\) \\ \(15\) & \(5.6\times 10^{8}\) & \(4.0\times 10^{8}\) & \(35\) & \(0.25\) & \(29.21\) \\ \(16\) & \(7.4\times 10^{8}\) & \(5.0\times 10^{8}\) & \(45\) & \(0.55\) & \(26.63\) \\ \(17\) & \(7.4\times 10^{8}\) & \(5.0\times 10^{8}\) & \(25\) & \(0.35\) & \(23.9\)Since \(X_{7}\) (normal critical force) and \(X_{8}\) (shear critical force) are not significant terms, the central horizontal values are 35 MPa and 0.45 MPa, respectively. The quadratic regression equation between the bending destructive power of inner flesh and the significant factors is obtained after the non\(-\)significant terms are removed. \[F_{2}=-106.68+5.76\times 10^{8}X_{5}+1.57\times 10^{7}X_{6}-6.97\times 10^{17}X_{5}^ {2}-3.38\times 10^{16}X_{6}^{2} \tag{3}\]  
The calculation by the constraint solver tool of Design\(-\)Expert shows that when \(X_{5}\) = 7.2 \(\times\) 10\({}^{8}\) N/m and \(X_{6}\) = 3.48 \(\times\) 10\({}^{8}\) N/m, the simulated test damage force is 32.57 N, which is 1.6% error from the actual test average bending damage force of 28.14 N. The bending damage curve of the inner flesh is shown in Figure 14, which shows that the bending damage process of the inner flesh is divided into three stages, including extrusion deformation, bending damage, and fracture stage, which is similar to the bending damage trend of the epidermis. In order to ensure the inner flesh structure and mechanical properties, the inner flesh is obtained by cutting the external epidermal tissue, and the hardness of the inner flesh is low compared with the hardness of the epidermis, and the inner flesh contact point is deformed elastically after applying force, and gradually the internal fibers break. The curve fluctuation in the actual test bending test is produced by the gradual fracture of the fiber, not the internal fiber fracture at the same time. At the beginning of the test, the change in the damage force is small, but the resulting displacement is large. It is possible that this part of the curve reflects not the mechanical properties of the inner flesh, but the instability caused by the placement of the inner flesh specimen.