| Literature DB >> 29382126 |
Yue Mei1, Sicheng Wang2, Xin Shen3, Stephen Rabke4, Sevan Goenezen5.
Abstract
The authors wish to correct Figures 12 and 14 in their paper published in Sensors [1], doi:10.3390/s17051075, http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/17/5/1075[...].Year: 2018 PMID: 29382126 PMCID: PMC5855962 DOI: 10.3390/s18020384
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 12Shear modulus reconstructions with 0.1% noise. (a) Target shear modulus distribution with an elliptically shaped inclusion is defined to study detectability of the inclusion shape. (b,c) Reconstructed shear modulus distribution using 5 and 10 boundary displacement data sets, respectively (unit in the scale bar: kPa). Note: “SM” stands for shear modulus.
Figure 14Problem domain with target shear modulus distribution is defined in the first column with varying shear modulus values in the inclusion from 7.5 (top row) to 100 kPa (bottom row) to test the feasibility range of stiffness detection. Columns 2 and 3 represent the shear modulus reconstructions with 5 and 10 boundary displacement data sets, respectively, using 0.1% noise.