ArticleScientific reports2024
A finite element model for predicting impact-induced damage to a skin simulant.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pre-Clinical Models of Penetrating Brain Injury: Study Protocol for a Scoping Review.NeuroSci · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A finite element model was developed for assessing the efficacy of rugby body padding in reducing the risk of sustaining cuts and abrasions. The model was developed to predict the onset of damage to a soft tissue simulant from concentrated impact loading (i.e., stud impact) and compared against a corresponding experiment. The damage modelling techniques involved defining an element deletion criterion, whereby those on the surface of the surrogate were deleted if their maximum principal stress reached a predefined value. Candidate maximum principal stress values for element deletion criteria were identified independently from puncture test simulations on the soft tissue simulant. Experimental impacts with a stud were carried out at three energies (2, 4 and 6 J), at three angular orientations (0°, 15° and 30°) and compared to corresponding simulations. Suitable maximum principal stress values for element deletion criteria settings were first identified for the 4 J impact, selecting the candidates that best matched the experimental results. The same element deletion settings were then applied in simulations at 2 and 6 J and the validity of the model was further assessed (difference < 15% for the force at tear and < 30% for time to tear). The damage modelling techniques presented here could be applied to other skin simulants to assess the onset of skin injuries and the ability of padding to prevent them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.