Off-cells: a place of work for Casentinesi Forests

\u201cOff-cells. Un luogo del lavoro per le Foreste Casentinesi\u201d \ue8 il progetto presentato alla Biennale di Venezia 2018 da Diverserighestudio, uno dei cinque gruppi di progettazione selezionati per il Padiglione Italia dal Curatore Mario Cucinella. \u201cArcipelago Italia\u201d guarda ai territori distanti, fuori dalle citt\ue0 e dalle aree urbane maggiori: l\u2019area di boschi secolari al confine tra Toscana ed Emilia Romagna ha, ancor pi\uf9 di altre, stimolato a riflettere sulle potenzialit\ue0 che le risorse materiali del luogo offrono all\u2019architettura e sulla rete di relazioni che esse possono alimentare, diventando occasioni di rilancio di sistemi insediativi indeboliti da decenni di marginalizzazione, ma ancora straordinariamente ricchi di potenzialit\ue0."Off-cells. A place of work for Casentinesi Forests\u201c is the project presented at Biennale di Architettura 2018 in Venice by Diverserighestudio, one of the five design groups selected for Italian Pavilion by the Curator Mario Cucinella. \u201cArcipelago Italia\u201d looks to distant territories, outside the cities and major urban areas: this area of secular woods on the border between Tuscany and Emilia Romagna has, even more than others, stimulated to reflect on both the potential that the material resources of the place offer to architecture and the network of relationships that they can form, becoming opportunities for relaunching settlement systems weakened by decades of marginalization, but still extraordinarily rich in potential

Musculoskeletal modelling of the human cervical spine for the investigation of injury mechanisms during axial impacts

This is the final version. Available from Public Library of Science via the DOI in this record.All relevant data are available at Figshare [https://figshare.com/projects/SILVESTROS_PLOS_ONE_SUPPORTING_DOCUMENTS/58280] and musculoskeletal models and relevant project information is available on the OpenSim SimTK repository [https://simtk.org/projects/csibath].Head collisions in sport can result in catastrophic injuries to the cervical spine. Musculoskeletal modelling can help analyse the relationship between motion, external forces and internal loads that lead to injury. However, impact specific musculoskeletal models are lacking as current viscoelastic values used to describe cervical spine joint dynamics have been obtained from unrepresentative quasi-static or static experiments. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a cervical spine musculoskeletal model for use in axial impacts. Cervical spine specimens (C2-C6) were tested under measured sub-catastrophic loads and the resulting 3D motion of the vertebrae was measured. Specimen specific musculoskeletal models were then created and used to estimate the axial and shear viscoelastic (stiffness and damping) properties of the joints through an optimisation algorithm that minimised tracking errors between measured and simulated kinematics. A five-fold cross validation and a Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis were conducted to assess the performance of the newly estimated parameters. The impact-specific parameters were integrated in a population specific musculoskeletal model and used to assess cervical spine loads measured from Rugby union impacts compared to available models. Results of the optimisation showed a larger increase of axial joint stiffness compared to axial damping and shear viscoelastic parameters for all models. The sensitivity analysis revealed that lower values of axial stiffness and shear damping reduced the models performance considerably compared to other degrees of freedom. The impact-specific parameters integrated in the population specific model estimated more appropriate joint displacements for axial head impacts compared to available models and are therefore more suited for injury mechanism analysis.Rugby Football Union (RFU) Injured Players Foundatio

Spine system equivalence: A new protocol for standardized multi-axis comparison tests

This is the final version of the paper.Accurately replicating the in-vivo loads of the spine is a critical aspect of in-vitro spine testing, but the complexity of this structure renders this challenging. The design and control capabilities of multi-axis spine systems vary considerably, and though recommendations have been made [1, 2], standardized in-vitro methods have not yet been established. As such, it is often difficult to compare different biomechanical studies [3]. The aim of this study was to use international standards [4, 5], and spine testing recommendations [1-3] to develop a standardized protocol for the evaluation of different multi-axis spinal test systems. The protocol was implemented on three six-axis spine systems, and the data used to establish stiffness and phase angle limits. [...]This research was supported by the Catherine Sharpe Foundation, the Enid Linder Foundation, the Higher Education Innovation Fund, and the University of Bath Alumni Fund

The equivalence of multi-axis spine systems: Recommended stiffness limits using a standardized testing protocol

Author's accepted manuscriptFinal version available from Elsevier via the DOI in this recordThe complexity of multi-axis spine testing often makes it challenging to compare results from different studies. The aim of this work was to develop and implement a standardized testing protocol across three six-axis spine systems, compare them, and provide stiffness and phase angle limits against which other test systems can be compared. Standardized synthetic lumbar specimens (n = 5), comprising three springs embedded in polymer at each end, were tested on each system using pure moments in flexion–extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Tests were performed using sine and triangle waves with an amplitude of 8 Nm, a frequency of 0.1 Hz, and with axial preloads of 0 and 500 N. The stiffness, phase angle, and R2 value of the moment against rotation in the principal axis were calculated at the center of each specimen. The tracking error was adopted as a measure of each test system to minimize non-principal loads, defined as the root mean squared difference between actual and target loads. All three test systems demonstrated similar stiffnesses, with small (<14%) but significant differences in 4 of 12 tests. More variability was observed in the phase angle between the principal axis moment and rotation, with significant differences in 10 of 12 tests. Stiffness and phase angle limits were calculated based on the 95% confidence intervals from all three systems. These recommendations can be used with the standard specimen and testing protocol by other research institutions to ensure equivalence of different spine systems, increasing the ability to compare in vitro spine studies.This research was completed with the support of the Catherine Sharpe Foundation, the Enid Linder Foundation, and the University of Bath Alumni Fun