Non-Linear Model for Compression Tests on Articular Cartilage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrated soft tissues, such as articular cartilage, are often modeled as biphasic systems with individually incompressible solid and fluid phases, and biphasic models are employed to fit experimental data in order to determine the mechanical and hydraulic properties of the tissues. Two of the most common experimental setups are confined and unconfined compression. Analytical solutions exist for the unconfined case with the linear, isotropic, homogeneous model of articular cartilage, and for the confined case with the non-linear, isotropic, homogeneous model. The aim of this contribution is to provide an easily implementable numerical tool to determine a solution to the governing differential equations of (homogeneous and isotropic) unconfined and (inhomogeneous and isotropic) confined compression under large deformations. The large-deformation governing equations are reduced to equivalent diffusive equations, which are then solved by means of finite difference (FD) methods. The solution strategy proposed here could be used to generate benchmark tests for validating complex user-defined material models within finite element (FE) implementations, and for determining the tissue's mechanical and hydraulic properties from experimental data.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".