scholarly journals A simplified algorithm computing all s-t bridges and articulation points

2021 ◽  
Vol 305 ◽  
pp. 103-108
Author(s):  
Massimo Cairo ◽  
Shahbaz Khan ◽  
Romeo Rizzi ◽  
Sebastian Schmidt ◽  
Alexandru I. Tomescu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Resuscitation ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 142 ◽  
pp. e63
Author(s):  
Kristian Møller Jensen ◽  
Søren Nygaard Hansen ◽  
Stefan Posth ◽  
Mikkel Brabrand
Keyword(s):  

Mathematics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (16) ◽  
pp. 1849
Author(s):  
Stelian Alaci ◽  
Constantin Filote ◽  
Florina-Carmen Ciornei ◽  
Oana Vasilica Grosu ◽  
Maria Simona Raboaca

The paper presents an analytical solution for the centric viscoelastic impact of two smooth balls. The contact period has two phases, compression and restitution, delimited by the moment corresponding to maximum deformation. The motion of the system is described by a nonlinear Hunt–Crossley equation that, when compared to the linear model, presents the advantage of a hysteresis loop closing in origin. There is only a single available equation obtained from the theorem of momentum. In order to solve the problem, in the literature, there are accepted different supplementary hypotheses based on energy considerations. In the present paper, the differential equation is written under a convenient form; it is shown that it can be integrated and a first integral is found—this being the main asset of the work. Then, all impact parameters can be calculated. The effect of coefficient of restitution upon all collision characteristics is emphasized, presenting importance for the compliant materials, in the domain of small coefficients of restitution. The results (variations of approach, velocity, force vs. time and hysteresis loop) are compared to two models due to Lankarani and Flores. For quasi-elastic collisions, the results are practically the same for the three models. For smaller values of the coefficient of restitution, the results of the present paper are in good agreement only to the Flores model. The simplified algorithm for the calculus of viscoelastic impact parameters is also presented. This algorithm avoids the large calculus volume required by solving the transcendental equations and definite integrals present in the mathematical model. The method proposed, based on the viscoelastic model given by Hunt and Crossley, can be extended to the elasto–visco–plastic nonlinear impact model.


Circulation ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 140 (Suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dung T Nguyen ◽  
Kasper G Lauridsen ◽  
Josephine Johnsen ◽  
Kristian Krogh ◽  
Bo Løfgren

Background: The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) 2015 basic life support (BLS) guidelines introduced a simplified algorithm compared to the ERC 2010 BLS guidelines. This was intended to improve adherence to guidelines and retention of skills. This study aimed to compare the retention of BLS skills 3 months after training using the ERC 2010 or 2015 guidelines. Methods: This was an observational study including video recordings of laypersons being skill tested 3 months after participation in a standardized ERC BLS/AED course using either the ERC 2010 guidelines or the simplified ERC 2015 guidelines. The endpoints were 1) remembering the correct sequence of BLS/AED algorithm, 2) remembering the correct sequence of the BLS/AED algorithm and performing all skills correctly, 3) time to: emergency medical service (EMS) call, first compression, and shock delivery. Results: We analyzed videos of 133 laypersons skill tested 3 months after initial training; 64 trained using the 2010 guidelines (mean ±standard deviation (SD) age: 40 ±11 years, male sex: 19 (30%)) and 69 trained using the 2015 guidelines (age: 44 ±10 years, male sex: 36 (52%)). Participants in the 2015 guidelines group improved the retention of the BLS/AED algorithm compared to the 2010 guidelines group (29 (42%) vs. 10 (16%), relative risk (RR): 2.7 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4 - 5.1) P=0.001). Both BLS/AED algorithm and all skills were correctly performed by 13 (19%) vs. 3 (5%) (RR: 4.0 (95% CI: 1.2 - 13.5) P=0.01) in the 2015 and 2010 groups respectively. No significant difference was found in time to EMS call (difference: 3 sec (95% CI: -2 - 9 sec) P=0.27), time to first compression (difference: 4 sec, (95% CI: -3 - 10 sec) P=0.28), and time to first shock (difference: 4 sec (95% CI: -5 - 14 sec) P=0.33) between the groups. Conclusion: BLS/AED training using ERC 2015 guidelines was associated with better skill retention compared to training using ERC 2010 guidelines. There was no difference in time to EMS call, first compression, or shock delivery.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document