MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166596811 · doi:10.1142/s1758825113500282

THE FRICTIONAL CONTACT ANALYSIS BETWEEN A TACTILE SENSOR AND ATRIAL TISSUE IN VISCOELASTICITY

2013· article· en· W2166596811 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jing Jin Shen, Chenggang Li, Hong Tao Wu, Masoud Kalantari

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Applied Mechanics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElasticity and Material Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFinite element methodConstitutive equationLinearizationViscoelasticityCreepCoulomb's lawMaterials scienceMechanicsCoulombStructural engineeringPhysicsNonlinear systemEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the effect of friction in tool–tissue interaction of surgical simulation. The focus of this research is on mitral valve repair by robot-assisted surgery (RAS) method with tactile feedback. Heart tissue is considered to be touched by a tactile sensor with considering the friction effect. A regularized Coulomb law analogous to elastoplastic theory is used to represent the friction. Since the heart tissue is subjected to repeated loading condition, a generalized standard solid chain is chosen for modeling the heart tissue. To implement the generalized standard solid chain in finite element analysis (FEA), a new splitting strategy is presented. The splitting strategy avoids the complicated conversion procedure from creep function to relaxation function by dividing the total problem into several subproblems. The penalty method is used in the derivation of continuum model for the interaction between the tactile sensor and the tissue. By performing linearization for the continuum model, the discrete model for the FEA is obtained. Numerical results are obtained by using the constitutive parameters of tissue and friction coefficient, which were found experimentally.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Applied MechanicsSame topicElasticity and Material ModelingFrench-language works237,207