Erratum: Mei, Y., et al. Mechanics Based Tomography: A Preliminary Feasibility Study. Sensors 2017, 17, 1075
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
2
Department of Mathematics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2018, 18(2), 384; https://doi.org/10.3390/s18020384
Submission received: 12 January 2018
/
Revised: 12 January 2018
/
Accepted: 23 January 2018
/
Published: 29 January 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Force and Pressure Based Sensing Medical Application)
The authors wish to correct Figure 12 and Figure 14 in their paper published in Sensors [1], doi:10.3390/s17051075, https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/17/5/1075.
The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused to readers by these changes. The manuscript will be updated, and the original will remain online on the article webpage with a reference to this Erratum.
Reference
- Mei, Y.; Wang, S.; Shen, X.; Rabke, S.; Goenezen, S. Mechanics Based Tomography: A Preliminary Feasibility Study. Sensors 2017, 17, 1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 12.
Shear 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 12.
Shear 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 14.
Problem 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.
Figure 14.
Problem 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.
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Mei, Y.; Wang, S.; Shen, X.; Rabke, S.; Goenezen, S. Erratum: Mei, Y., et al. Mechanics Based Tomography: A Preliminary Feasibility Study. Sensors 2017, 17, 1075. Sensors 2018, 18, 384. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18020384
AMA Style
Mei Y, Wang S, Shen X, Rabke S, Goenezen S. Erratum: Mei, Y., et al. Mechanics Based Tomography: A Preliminary Feasibility Study. Sensors 2017, 17, 1075. Sensors. 2018; 18(2):384. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18020384
Chicago/Turabian StyleMei, Yue, Sicheng Wang, Xin Shen, Stephen Rabke, and Sevan Goenezen. 2018. "Erratum: Mei, Y., et al. Mechanics Based Tomography: A Preliminary Feasibility Study. Sensors 2017, 17, 1075" Sensors 18, no. 2: 384. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18020384
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
