Prescience Life of Landing Gear Using Multiaxial Fatigue Numerical Analysis

AbstractFatigue failure, which occurs in many engineering components and structures in service, is actually attributed to the multiaxial loads. This study is aimed to estimate/ prescience life of main landing gear of a medium multi-utility aircraft under multiaxial loadings. In this analysis we studied the various loading conditions among them few are the spin-up, spring-back and lateral drift loading.The equivalent stress based multiaxial fatigue criteria (Sines and Crosslands) is employed for the determination of equivalent stress due to multiaxial loading and Palmgren Miner's theory used for calculating total damage and consequently the fatigue life. It is seen that the multiaxial fatigue numerical analysis render lower life than the maximum uni-axial life value

Multi-physics based Simulations of an Oleo-pneumatic Shock Absorber System for PHM

The paper presents multi-physics (Mechanical, Thermal, Hydraulic, and Pneumatic) based modelling and simulation of an Oleo-pneumatic shock absorber with fault capabilities. The fault simulated in this model is leakage due to eccentricity. The one-dimensional shock absorber system models to give loads at different sink velocities. These load values, used in the structural model to do static stress analysis. By using these loads directly from the system model eliminates the error in load computation from the load’s group, thereby eliminating the time and cost involved in this activity. The models and static stress analyses carried out with both 1-D and 3-D elements. The 3-D landing gear model meshed with using both auto and manual mesh generation options. The consequences of both 1-D and 3-D models mesh generation, discussed in this paper. The static stress analysis, compared with the experimental results and it is found that the results are within 5% deviation. Based on the static stress and fatigue analysis computed the life of a landing gear

Global impacts of Covid-19 on lifestyles and health and preparation preferences: an international survey of 30 countries

Background: The health area being greatest impacted by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and residents' perspective to better prepare for future pandemic remain unknown. We aimed to assess and make cross-country and cross-region comparisons of the global impacts of COVID-19 and preparation preferences of pandemic. Methods: We recruited adults in 30 countries covering all World Health Organization (WHO) regions from July 2020 to August 2021. 5 Likert-point scales were used to measure their perceived change in 32 aspects due to COVID-19 (-2 = substantially reduced to 2 = substantially increased) and perceived importance of 13 preparations (1 = not important to 5 = extremely important). Samples were stratified by age and gender in the corresponding countries. Multidimensional preference analysis displays disparities between 30 countries, WHO regions, economic development levels, and COVID-19 severity levels. Results: 16 512 adults participated, with 10 351 females. Among 32 aspects of impact, the most affected were having a meal at home (mean (m) = 0.84, standard error (SE) = 0.01), cooking at home (m = 0.78, SE = 0.01), social activities (m = -0.68, SE = 0.01), duration of screen time (m = 0.67, SE = 0.01), and duration of sitting (m = 0.59, SE = 0.01). Alcohol (m = -0.36, SE = 0.01) and tobacco (m = -0.38, SE = 0.01) consumption declined moderately. Among 13 preparations, respondents rated medicine delivery (m = 3.50, SE = 0.01), getting prescribed medicine in a hospital visit / follow-up in a community pharmacy (m = 3.37, SE = 0.01), and online shopping (m = 3.33, SE = 0.02) as the most important. The multidimensional preference analysis showed the European Region, Region of the Americas, Western Pacific Region and countries with a high-income level or medium to high COVID-19 severity were more adversely impacted on sitting and screen time duration and social activities, whereas other regions and countries experienced more cooking and eating at home. Countries with a high-income level or medium to high COVID-19 severity reported higher perceived mental burden and emotional distress. Except for low- and lower-middle-income countries, medicine delivery was always prioritised. Conclusions: Global increasing sitting and screen time and limiting social activities deserve as much attention as mental health. Besides, the pandemic has ushered in a notable enhancement in lifestyle of home cooking and eating, while simultaneously reducing the consumption of tobacco and alcohol. A health care system and technological infrastructure that facilitate medicine delivery, medicine prescription, and online shopping are priorities for coping with future pandemics

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries