Comparison of various contact algorithms for poroelastic tissues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Capabilities of the commercial finite element package ABAQUS in simulating frictionless contact between two saturated porous structures were evaluated and compared with those of an open source code, FEBio. In ABAQUS, both the default contact implementation and another algorithm based on an iterative approach requiring script programming were considered. Test simulations included a patch test of two cylindrical slabs in a gapless contact and confined compression conditions; a confined compression test of a porous cylindrical slab with a spherical porous indenter; and finally two unconfined compression tests of soft tissues mimicking diarthrodial joints. The patch test showed almost identical results for all algorithms. On the contrary, the confined and unconfined compression tests demonstrated large differences related to distinct physical and boundary conditions considered in each of the three contact algorithms investigated in this study. In general, contact with non-uniform gaps between fluid-filled porous structures could be effectively simulated with either ABAQUS or FEBio. The user should be aware of the parameter definitions, assumptions and limitations in each case, and take into consideration the physics and boundary conditions of the problem of interest when searching for the most appropriate model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".