Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Slow-Release Fertilizer on the Growth of Garlic Sprouts and the Soil Environment
Previous Article in Journal
Digital Twins for Intelligent Vehicle-to-Grid Systems: A Multi-Physics EV Model for AI-Based Energy Management
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 15
10.3390/app15158215
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Frictional Cohesive Force and Multifunctional Simple Machine for Advanced Engineering and Biomedical Applications

by
Carlos Aurelio Andreucci
1,*,
Ahmed Yaseen
2 and
Elza M. M. Fonseca
3
1
Biomedical Engineering Department, School of Engineering and Computing, American International University, Al Jahra 91100, Kuwait
2
Clinic for Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery Hospital Johanneum, Wieldeshausen 27793, Germany
3
Polytechnic of Porto ISEP, Porto 4249015, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(15), 8215; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15158215
Submission received: 15 May 2025 / Revised: 12 July 2025 / Accepted: 16 July 2025 / Published: 23 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Materials Science and Engineering)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Featured Application

The new bioactive kinetic screw model has a mechanical advantage that makes it a simple new machine that simultaneously cuts, drills, gathers, and compacts in a precise and standardized manner, determining an innovative frictional–cohesion force in materials.

Abstract

A new, simple machine was developed to address a long-standing challenge in biomedical and mechanical engineering: how to enhance the primary stability and long-term integration of screws and implants in low-density or heterogeneous materials, such as bone or composite substrates. Traditional screws often rely solely on external threading for fixation, leading to limited cohesion, poor integration, or early loosening under cyclic loading. In response to this problem, we designed and built a novel device that leverages a unique mechanical principle to simultaneously perforate, collect, and compact the substrate material during insertion. This mechanism results in an internal material interlock, enhancing cohesion and stability. Drawing upon principles from physics, chemistry, engineering, and biology, we evaluated its biomechanical behavior in synthetic bone analogs. The maximum insertion (MIT) and removal torques (MRT) were measured on synthetic osteoporotic bones using a digital torquemeter, and the values were compared directly. Experimental results demonstrated that removal torque (mean of 21.2 Ncm) consistently exceeded insertion torque (mean of 20.2 Ncm), indicating effective material interlocking and cohesive stabilization. This paper reviews the relevant literature, presents new data, and discusses potential applications in civil infrastructure, aerospace, and energy systems where substrate cohesion is critical. The findings suggest that this new simple machine offers a transformative approach to improving fixation and integration across multiple domains.

1. Introduction

This research introduces a novel multifunctional simple machine that revolutionizes current drilling and fastening systems by integrating cutting, collecting, compacting, and cohesive anchoring mechanisms into a single operational step. The machine, designed with modified drill geometry and innovative structural features, enables enhanced material interaction without requiring lateral compression after insertion. It demonstrates consistent superiority in mechanical locking, as evidenced by a MRT greater than the MIT, and provides wide-ranging applicability in biomedical, civil, mechanical, aerospace, and energy sectors.
Traditional drilling and fastening systems rely on torque and lateral pressure to achieve material fixation. These methods often risk damaging low-density or fragile materials, such as osteoporotic bone or composite laminates. The novel simple machine addresses these limitations through a multi-action mechanism capable of simultaneously cutting, drilling, gathering, and compacting substrate material. Its operation creates a unique frictional cohesive force (FCF), enabling high mechanical retention without structural compromise [1,2,3]. Some biomechanical applications have already been extensively studied, and other possible applications are described here.
The hypothesis underlying this research is that the integration of substrate material into the internal volume of the device during insertion enhances primary stability and long-term fixation. This frictional cohesive locking mechanism is superior to conventional torque-based fixation, particularly in variable-density or low-resistance environments. In the biomedical field, this innovation has demonstrated benefits for orthopedic implants by improving primary stability in osteoporotic or cancellous bone through compacting local bone into the implant [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Dental implants also benefit by achieving anchorage in variable-density jawbone, promoting a more robust healing interface [7,8]. For prosthetic interfaces, the machine allows for secure mechanical linkages without the need for cements or adhesives, improving reliability and biocompatibility [1,9].
In civil engineering, the device supports effective rock anchoring for tunnel and slope stabilization by anchoring support rods without causing fractures [2,10]. It improves the load-bearing capacity of foundation piers in low-density soils through internal compaction [11,12] and enables geotechnical sampling with minimal disruption to the core material [13,14]. In mechanical engineering contexts, it enables press-fit assembly of composite and metallic components by forming strong, friction-locked bonds without requiring excess pressure [5,15]. It also allows for the secure mounting of tools and fixtures on delicate surfaces such as foams or fibers [16], and supports rapid prototyping by providing modular, damage-free attachments [1].
In the aerospace industry, the simple machine facilitates satellite repair and assembly by securely anchoring into lightweight or modular composites without thermal distortion [17]. It is also compatible with structural fastening under flight or vacuum conditions, thanks to its non-expansive mechanical locking mechanism [18], and it supports vibration-resistant fixtures by delivering consistent cohesion under fatigue conditions [19]. The energy sector sees advantages through its application in oil and gas infrastructure, where it anchors probes, pipes, and support frames into challenging environments such as seabeds and fractured formations [20]. It provides anchoring solutions for offshore wind turbines in variable-density marine sediments [2] and secures CO2 injection wells without compromising geological integrity [4,12].
Torque-based testing confirms MRT > MIT under all tested conditions, indicating increased post-insertion mechanical resistance. Frictional bonding between collected and compacted materials is key to this enhanced locking performance. Simulated environments include osteoporotic bone, sandstone, polymer foam, and carbon composites [21,22,23,24,25]. Inspired by friction stir welding (FSW) principles, the new machine leverages frictional heat and mechanical agitation to achieve material cohesion without excessive lateral pressure. Unlike FSW, which typically involves metal alloys, the simple machine can operate at low temperatures to avoid damage to biological tissues or sensitive composites. The process results in a FCF between the inserted material and the surrounding substrate, producing superior mechanical integration.
MIT becomes a parameter for evaluating the extent of compaction and material interaction rather than a measure of lateral compression. The MRT exceeding the MIT demonstrates enhanced fixation strength and long-term mechanical stability. This concept is crucial in biomedical applications, where preventing bone necrosis and promoting osseointegration are essential. It is equally transformative for civil engineering, aerospace, and energy sectors where rapid, reliable anchoring in diverse materials is required. By preserving the microstructural integrity of the surrounding material, the multifunctional simple machine achieves a mechanical advantage unattainable with conventional systems, offering a paradigm shift across multiple fields of application [21].
The optimization of welding conditions is predicated on a profound understanding of the intricate relationship between forces and process parameters, including traverse speed, rotational speed, and tool geometry. By leveraging this enhanced understanding, researchers can achieve substantial advancements in the performance of welded joints, thereby ensuring the long-term integrity of welded structures [22].
The friction generated between the tool and the workpiece generates heat, the temperature of which should not exceed 49 degrees Celsius for more than one minute when working with biomaterials. The material’s softening, such as that of bone compared to metal screws, enables the tool to penetrate the interface of the materials being friction-welded by cohesion (modified FSW) [23].
The present utilization of bone screws and implants is predominantly predicated on the compressive force exerted by the MIT, which is obtained by compressing the recipient material (bone). MIT is a critical metric for evaluating the efficacy of osseointegrated screws and implants, though its ideal values are not consistently reported in the literature [24]. The novel bioactive kinetic screw (BKS) simple machine does not utilize torque only as an indicator of the compressive locking force of the screw or bone implant. It indicates the extent to which the material (bone) has been compacted in its internal volume and the result of the FCF obtained between the bone in the receiving bed and the bone inside its volume. The magnitude of this force is augmented by the physico-chemical properties of the analogous materials positioned in maximum surface direct contact (bone to bone), as illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2 [25,26,27,28,29].
The biomaterial (e.g., titanium) is not compressed laterally against the bone due to BKS’s precise cutting and drilling capabilities, which are determined by its geometry and characteristics as a modified drill. Upon completion of the drilling process, the titanium does not exert lateral compression on the bone.
Therefore, the MIT value obtained functions as an indicator parameter of the frictional cohesive contact of the materials, without lateral compression of the BKS, and cohesion of similar materials inserted inside the BKS, like the bone. The variation in the densities of the BKS receptor materials, as well as the disparity in bone densities, does not impede its utilization and implementation. The efficacy of the receptor material is directly proportional to its density; that is to say, the lower the density of the material (low-density bone), the more efficient its BKS applicability [31,32,33,34].
When MIT is applied, BKS consistently and reliably generates results, indicating that the MRT is invariably greater than the MIT value. The enhancement in the contact surface between the materials, intrinsic to the precision of simultaneous drilling and screwing, in conjunction with the frictional cohesion of the materials obtained, elucidates this phenomenon [35]. Consequently, the parameter associated with the safety of utilizing BKS in applications such as bone screws and implants is exclusively related to the maximum temperature obtained during its use, which should not exceed 49 degrees Celsius, quantity of the bone, and proper technique [24].
The dimensions, spatial configurations, schematics, and operational capabilities of the BKS can be adapted according to its applicability, while preserving only the innovative active mechanism of simultaneously cutting, drilling, collecting, and compacting during its insertion, achieving FCF.
This paper reviews the ongoing research on the new BKS simple machine and its applicability, drawing novel conclusions on the benefits and limitations of its use. To this end, its ability to hold torque by coercion without the use of cutting or drilling threads present in conventional screws was experimentally tested in vitro on osteoporotic synthetic bones.

2. Materials and Methods

Five models of the BKS were machined in sizes of 4 mm in diameter by 10 mm in length, which is the standard measure for bone screws in dental implants, and were previously validated in vitro for compacting and collecting material in osteoporotic synthetic bone, with non-cutting threads. The BKS was inserted with a technical drill motor into synthetic bone, like osteoporotic bone (Nacional Ossos PCF 10). The synthetic bone model PCF10, with a density of approximately 0.16 g/cm3 (10 lb/ft3), exhibits a highly porous open-cell structure designed to mimic cancellous bone. It has a compressive strength ranging from 2 to 5 Mpa, a tensile strength between 1 and 2 Mpa, and a Young’s modulus of approximately 50 to 150 Mpa. Fabricated from rigid polyurethane foam, PCF10 conforms to ASTM F1839 standards and is widely used for mechanical testing of orthopedic and dental implants in low-density bone simulations.
The MIT and MRT measurements were taken with a digital torque wrench (TQ-8801 Lutron, Coopersburg, PA, USA). The Lutron TQ-8801 torque meter is a handheld digital device designed for precise measurement of torque in a range of 0.15 to 15.00 Nm, featuring high-resolution readings, data hold and peak hold functions, a backlit LCD display, and a compact, durable design suitable for laboratory and industrial applications, as seen in Figure 3.
The simultaneous drilling and screwing operations were executed manually, with Tech surgical motor TD Max Surg 1 (Techdrill Equipamentos Medicos Ltd., London, UK) with a pre-established torque of 35 Newton-centimeters and a maximum rotation of 300 revolutions per minute.
The results obtained were described through a direct comparison of the MIT and MRT values, with each value analyzed individually. In the context of BKS, this methodological approach is imperative for the purpose of acquiring precise torque measurements. The crux of this methodology lies in the capacity to ascertain a torque level that exceeds the established MIT benchmark. The utilization of mean values in this context would serve to obscure the true outcomes, thereby compromising the integrity of the experimental results.

3. Results

A total of five measurements were obtained for PCF 10 bone density, and solely the lowest values were utilized in this study to preserve a direct relationship between individual MIT and MRT values. It was determined that the utilization of the mean of the values obtained from all the measurements would not allow for the precise determination of the values of the coefficient of friction for each bone density studied. The lower values of MIT and MRT determined and applied in this study enable the prediction of the torque and load that the BKS implant will support, with a margin of safety to be tested.
The MIT values across the five PCF10 samples ranged from 20 to 21 Ncm, with a mean of 20.2 Ncm and a standard deviation of 0.45 Ncm.
The MRT values ranged from 21 to 22 Ncm, with a mean of 21.2 Ncm and a standard deviation of 0.45 Ncm.
These results indicate a consistent mechanical behavior across samples, with MRT consistently exceeding MIT—supporting the hypothesis of effective cohesive interaction between the device and the substrate material.
As demonstrated in Table 1, the findings indicate that the MRT exceeds MIT in all measurements. The coefficient of static friction (μsf) was established by previous studies [33].

4. Discussion

The multifunctional simple machine demonstrates a novel capacity to anchor into both biological and synthetic substrates without exerting harmful lateral stresses, a critical feature supported by the observed disparity between insertion and removal torque values (MIT < MRT). The collection and compaction of substrate material during insertion—combined with the cohesive surface bonding termed frictional cohesive force (FCF)—enable a mechanically stable and biologically gentle interlock [21].
From a biomedical perspective, this innovation provides substantial benefits over conventional bone screws. Unlike traditional implants that rely on lateral compression—risking thermal osteonecrosis or microfractures—the new device utilizes frictional bonding and internal material compaction to ensure secure fixation while preserving biological tissue viability. In orthopedic and dental applications, particularly within osteoporotic bone, this mechanism fosters improved osseointegration and primary stability. These advantages are demonstrated by experimental findings in which MRT consistently exceeded MIT across all densities of synthetic bone tested [29]. The difference in torque values serves as a quantifiable biomechanical parameter that may improve clinical planning and implant predictability.
In civil engineering, the same mechanism proves advantageous in anchoring within heterogeneous soils and fractured rock. By avoiding the creation of destabilizing stress fields, the machine offers potential for stable anchoring in applications such as rock bolting, foundation reinforcement, and soil stabilization [2,10,11]. Comparatively, conventional anchoring methods may generate radial cracks or require grouting, which are processes that are avoided with this cohesive system.
In aerospace settings, the machine’s ability to maintain mechanical integrity under vibration-prone conditions suggests applications in satellite assembly and modular repairs [17,18,19]. Conventional fastening methods often suffer loosening in dynamic environments, but the friction-based cohesive locking of the new design counters such risks without inducing structural fatigue.
Energy sector benefits include anchoring pipelines in seabeds or fractured geologies and securing wind turbines that are subjected to fluctuating loads. These applications leverage the device’s ability to adapt to variable-density materials, enabling secure, minimally invasive anchorage [12,20].
The mechanism underlying these advantages, FCF, is supported by analogs such as cold welding observed during controlled drilling. In the BKS model, frictional cohesion is achieved without lateral pressure, using approximately 30% of the implant volume to incorporate compacted host material, which then contributes to enhanced retention during removal (MRT > MIT) [29,30,31]. These findings establish a direct link between mechanical data and clinical or industrial performance.
Comparative analysis with augmentation methods such as polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cementation reveals several distinctions. While cement-augmented screws enhance pullout resistance, they are associated with complications such as thermal necrosis, implant migration, and revision difficulties [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]. In contrast, the BKS achieves similar or superior fixation without introducing foreign material, enabling autogenous integration, simplified revision, and reduced complication risk.
Additional studies on orthopedic fracture models confirm that screw augmentation tailored to bone quality enhances primary stability. When comparing screw augmentation using PMMA versus the BKS frictional mechanism, the latter provides equivalent biomechanical anchorage while preserving biological integrity [36,41]. Similarly, in spinal surgeries, Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and carbon-filled PEEK (CF) screws with cement augmentation improve fixation but carry risks during revision procedures. BKS offers a bioinert, structurally integrated alternative [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50].
The BKS’s use in dental implantology also presents unique advantages. Traditional sinus lift and autograft procedures require staged surgeries. BKS simplifies this by collecting bone particles, cells, and proteins during drilling and reintegrating them immediately at the implant site, performing grafting and implantation simultaneously [25]. This novel approach accelerates healing and reduces the risk of contamination by minimizing bone exposure to the surgical environment [32].
Mathematical models of drilling confirmed that torque correlates with internal compaction, and testing with four synthetic bone densities (PCF 10–40) confirmed a 3.45× compaction ratio. MIT and MRT values in each case exhibited a reliable trend: MRT always exceeded MIT, supporting the implant’s resistance to pullout under load [29].
The study also contributes to biotribology, showing that blood functions as a lubricant and affects friction during insertion. A new parameter (HN = 10.7 × 10−7) was derived from finite element analysis for cortical and cancellous bone, highlighting biological interactions typically overlooked in implant mechanics [30].
Osseous reconstruction often relies on autografts to ensure biocompatibility and osteogenic potential. BKS enables such autografts by extracting and reinserting bone during a single operation, as demonstrated in mandibular graft procedures using BKS as the implant [25]. This reduces surgical stages and enhances healing while avoiding immune responses.
Standardization in implant fixation is critical. Traditionally, MIT alone has been used as a proxy for stability, despite inconsistent thresholds in the literature. The BKS paradigm introduces a dual-parameter system—MIT and MRT—across five bone densities, providing a reproducible mechanical profile that correlates with clinical outcomes. This allows practitioners to predict and control implant behavior with greater precision [33].
Mechanically, BKS functions as a modified simple machine that translates torque into linear compaction, increasing material density within its core volume. This differs from standard screw threads, which rely on external compression and risk overdriving. The geometric and material-specific characteristics of BKS allow it to act as a granular compactor, incorporating collected material to enhance retention [34,51,52,53].
The BKS presents several distinct advantages when compared to expanding screws, cemented systems, and traditional threaded implants. Unlike expanding screws, which apply lateral pressure to achieve fixation, the BKS avoids such compression by simultaneously cutting, collecting, and compacting the substrate material during insertion. This approach reduces the risk of microfractures and thermal damage, particularly in osteoporotic bone, and results in a higher mechanical retention demonstrated by consistently greater maximum removal torque (MRT) than insertion torque (MIT).
In contrast, expanding screws can cause uneven stress distribution and are less effective in preserving surrounding bone microstructure. While cemented systems provide immediate fixation through the use of materials such as PMMA, they introduce risks including thermal necrosis, cement leakage, and difficulty in revision surgeries. BKS, which requires no additional materials, avoids these complications by using the patient’s own compacted bone as a cohesive agent within the device. Traditional threaded implants rely on compressive torque for stability and are highly dependent on bone quality; they do not integrate bone collection or compaction and typically involve multiple surgical steps that increase the risk of contamination.
BKS simplifies the procedure by combining drilling and insertion into a single step, preserving bone integrity and allowing for potential autograft use. However, the BKS remains in an early stage of clinical adoption, with ongoing studies required to validate its long-term outcomes across applications. It demands precise manufacturing and surgical technique, and although its mechanical advantage is well established in controlled settings, broader implementation will depend on further in vivo research and surgeon training (Table 2).
The BKS has demonstrated strong potential as an alternative to cemented screws in osteoporotic femur fixation, though it cannot yet be considered a full replacement in all clinical scenarios without further in vivo evidence.
Cemented screws are currently used to enhance fixation in osteoporotic bone by filling the trabecular spaces with PMMA, increasing pullout strength. However, this method carries risks such as thermal necrosis, cement leakage, difficulty during revision, and potential long-term inflammation or foreign-body reaction.
BKS addresses many of these limitations by avoiding cement entirely. Instead, it achieves high mechanical stability through a unique process of cutting, collecting, and compacting local bone material during insertion. This leads to a FCF that stabilizes the implant without lateral pressure or chemical augmentation. In synthetic bone models simulating osteoporotic conditions, BKS consistently produced MRT values greater than the MIT, indicating improved anchorage and potential for durable fixation.
Importantly, BKS preserves the biological vitality of bone, eliminates the need for additional biomaterials, and allows for simpler revision procedures, as there is no hardened cement to remove. It also reduces the number of surgical steps by combining drilling and insertion, which minimizes contamination risk and operative time.
However, large-scale clinical trials in osteoporotic femur fractures have not yet confirmed the long-term outcomes of BKS in comparison with cemented systems. Moreover, in severely osteoporotic or pathologic bone, where minimal native structure remains, cement augmentation may still provide the necessary bulk reinforcement that BKS alone cannot yet replicate.
In summary, BKS shows significant promise and could potentially replace cemented screws in many osteoporotic femur cases, especially where bone compaction and mechanical cohesion are sufficient.
Caution is advised when using BKS in temporary fixations, particularly in osseointegrable applications where long-term bonding may not be desired. Further studies are needed to extend its utility to bioinert or synthetic materials while maintaining its unique cohesive mechanism.
The study’s quantitative findings (MIT vs. MRT) directly support the device’s mechanical superiority, while its broad applicability across biomedical, civil, and aerospace sectors provides a compelling case for its adoption. Comparative analysis with conventional and augmented fixation methods underscores its advantages in simplicity, safety, and performance.

5. Conclusions

The frictional cohesive force (FCF) produced by the multifunctional simple machine introduces a paradigm shift in fastening and anchoring technology across multiple sectors. By eliminating the need for lateral compressive forces, preserving substrate integrity, and achieving superior mechanical locking, this device opens new frontiers in the integration of biomechanical, structural engineering, and materials science. Future work will explore optimization for different material densities and in vivo biological responses.
The use of torque as a success parameter in osseointegration is still controversial. Discrepant results, different protocols, and different bone densities are challenging variables when using the common concept of bone screws and implants. The new BKS model has a mechanical advantage that makes it a simple machine that simultaneously cuts, drills, joins, and compacts in a precise and standardized way. It is possible to determine the MRT without applying it and individually calculate the load capacity it will support without the use of any invasive device that could compromise the initial mechanical locking and interfere with biological osseointegration during the healing, repair, and bone remodeling process.
The BKS is not a screw, and it is not a drill; it is a new and simple machine with the mechanical advantage of compacting material in its internal volume, with specific functions and characteristics that can be precisely adapted to different applications in biomedicine and other fields of knowledge to be defined. Its advantages in biological preservation, simplicity, and safety are compelling, but broader clinical validation is required before it can fully replace cemented systems in all osteoporotic indications.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.A.A. and E.M.M.F.; methodology, C.A.A.; software, E.M.M.F.; validation, E.M.M.F.; formal analysis, E.M.M.F.; investigation, A.Y.; resources, A.Y.; data curation, E.M.M.F.; writing—original draft preparation, C.A.A.; writing—review and editing, C.A.A.; visualization, A.Y.; supervision, E.M.M.F.; project administration, C.A.A.; funding acquisition, A.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
FCFFrictional Cohesion Force
BKSBioactive Kinetic Screw
MITMaximum Insertion Torque
MRTMaximum Removal Torque

References

  1. Andreucci, C.A. Bioactive Kinetic Screw (BKS)—Multifunctional Simple Machine; University of Porto: Porto, Portugal, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  2. SINOROCK. Self-Drilling Soil Nailing Equipment. 2023. Available online: https://www.sinorockco.com/news/industry-news/self-drilling-soil-nail-equipment.html (accessed on 12 July 2025).
  3. Motoyoshi, M.; Inaba, M.; Ono, A.; Ueno, S.; Shimizu, N. The Effect of Cortical Bone Thickness on the Stability of Orthodontic Mini-Implants and on the Stress Distribution in Surrounding Bone. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2009, 38, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Tethys Engineering. Advanced Anchoring and Mooring Study. 2020. Available online: https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Advanced-Anchor-and-Mooring-Study.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2025).
  5. Zhang, W.; Chen, Y.; Wang, H. Analysis of Drilling Vibration Characteristics of Anchoring Systems. Sensors 2023, 23, 10542. [Google Scholar]
  6. Han, C.; Xie, Z.; Yang, K.; Zhang, N. Anchoring Method Utilizing Self-Drilling and Self-Anchoring Extendable Anchor Rod Applicable to Soft and Weak Coal Rocks. U.S. Patent 10,487,654, 26 November 2019. [Google Scholar]
  7. Liu, Y.; Wang, S.; Zhao, L. Mechanical Characteristics of Anchor Drilling Rig Groups for Rapid Excavating. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 4556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Sun, S.; Mao, S.; Xue, X.; Wang, C.; Ma, H.; Guo, Y.; Yuan, H.; Su, H. Research on Obstacle-Avoidance Trajectory Planning for Drill and Anchor Materials Handling by a Mechanical Arm on a Coal Mine Drilling and Anchoring Robot. Sensors 2024, 24, 6866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Liu, H.; Zhao, J.; Davis, T. Novel Adhesive Anchoring System through Engineered Adhesive–Concrete Interface. Structures 2021, 33, 947–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wang, Y.; Huang, J.; Zhao, X. Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems; DOT Research Library: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  11. Jiang, X.; Liu, H.; Sun, Y. Experimental Analysis on Applicability Degree and Influence Factors. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2024, 353, 114072. [Google Scholar]
  12. Zhang, S.; Wang, Q. Design and key technology research of ZYWL-4000SY remote control drilling rig. Coal Sci. Technol. 2021, 49, 129–134. [Google Scholar]
  13. TechInsight, Inc. Why Anchor Tool Selection Matters in Drilling Applications. 2024. Available online: https://www.techinsight.com/blog/anchor-tool-selection-drilling (accessed on 12 July 2025).
  14. Liu, Z.; Li, Z.; Zou, K.; Xie, C. Research and Application of excavation and anchoring machine airborne advanced exploration drilling rig. ResearchSquare. 2023. Available online: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-4200090/v1 (accessed on 12 July 2025).
  15. Petersen, D.; Lin, Z.; Zhao, J. Design of anchor reinforcement for seismic tension loads. Eng. Struct. 2018, 164, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Li, M.; Zhang, Z.; Xu, Q. Novel Construction Method for Efficiently Drilling Slope Protection Anchor Rods. Chinese Patent CN114370228A, 22 April 2023. [Google Scholar]
  17. Li, H.; Wang, Y.; Chen, D. Asteroid Anchoring Method Based on Cross-Drilling Geometric Force Closure. Acta Astronaut. 2020, 173, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Liu, K.; Cheng, J.; Sun, X.; Li, Z.; Wan, Z.; Xing, Z.; Xing, K.; Liu, J. Automated Stratum Interface Detection Using the Optimized Drilling Specific Energy through Self-Adaptive Logistic Function. Sensors 2023, 23, 8594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cehreli, M.C.; Comert, M.; Karasoy, D.; Sahin, S. Mechanical Properties of Self-Drilling and Self-Tapping Orthodontic Mini-Implants. Angle Orthod. 2010, 80, 821–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chen, J.; Lv, X.; Kang, J.; Liu, G.; Zhou, Y. Experimental Study on the Anchoring Mechanism and Performance of BFRP Bolt-Anchorage System in Supporting Clay Slopes. Polymer Testing 2025, 147, 108822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang, J.; Song, B.; Wei, Q.; Bourell, D.; Shi, Y. A Review of Selective Laser Melting of Aluminum Alloys: Processing, Microstructure, Property and Developing Trends. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2019, 35, 270–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Braga, D.F.O.; Eslami, S.; Moreira, P.M.G.P. Friction Stir Welding. In Advanced Joining Processes; da Silva, L., El-Zein, M., Martins, P., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 173–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Timon, C.; Keady, C. Thermal Osteonecrosis Caused by Bone Drilling in Orthopedic Surgery: A Literature Review. Cureus 2019, 11, e5226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bachiri, A.; Djebbar, N.; Boutabout, B.; Serier, B. Effect of Different Impactor Designs on Biomechanical Behavior in the Interface Bone-Implant: A Comparative Biomechanics Study. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 2020, 197, 105723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Andreucci, C.A.; Fonseca, E.M.M.; Jorge, R.N. A New Simplified Autogenous Sinus Lift Technique. Bioengineering 2023, 10, 505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Andreucci, C.A.; Fonseca, E.M.M.; Natal, R.M.J. Structural analysis of the new Bioactive Kinetic Screw in titanium alloy vs. commercially pure titanium. J. Comp. Art. Int. Mec. Biomec. 2022, 2, 35–43. [Google Scholar]
  27. Andreucci, C.A.; Alshaya, A.; Fonseca, E.M.M.; Jorge, R.N. Proposal for a New Bioactive Kinetic Screw in an Implant, Using a Numerical Model. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Andreucci, C.A.; Fonseca, E.M.M.; Jorge, R.N. 3D Printing as an Efficient Way to Prototype and Develop Dental Implants. BioMedInformatics 2022, 2, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Andreucci, C.A.; Fonseca, E.M.M.; Jorge, R.N. Increased Material Density within a New Biomechanism. Math. Comput. Appl. 2022, 27, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Andreucci, C.A.; Fonseca, E.M.M.; Jorge, R.N. Bio-lubricant Properties Analysis of Drilling an Innovative Design of Bioactive Kinetic Screw into Bone. Designs 2023, 7, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Andreucci, C.A.; Fonseca, E.M.M.; Jorge, R.N. Immediate Autogenous Bone Transplantation Using a Novel Kinetic Bioactive Screw 3D Design as a Dental Implant. BioMedInformatics 2023, 3, 299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Andreucci, C.A.; Fonseca, E.M.M.; Natal Jorge, R.M. BKS Drill-and-Seal Technique: Innovative Design and Aseptic Bone Implant. In Lecture Notes in Bioengineering, Proceedings of the 10th Congress of the Portuguese Society of Biomechanics, Figueira da Foz, Portugal, 5–6 May 2023; Martins Amaro, A., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Andreucci, C.A.; Fonseca, E.M.M.; Jorge, R.N. Static in bone implants: Standard steady-state torque and primary stability in a bioactive kinetic screw. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 2023, 45, 651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Andreucci, C.A.; Fonseca, E.M.M.; Jorge, R.N. A New Simple Machine That Converts Torque into Steady-State Pressure in Solids. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE 7th Portuguese Meeting on Bioengineering (ENBENG), Porto, Portugal, 22–23 June 2023; pp. 148–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rosenholm, J.B.; Peiponen, K.-E.; Gornov, E. Materials Cohesion and Interaction Forces. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2008, 141, 48–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Röderer, G.; Scola, A.; Schmölz, W.; Gebhard, F.; Windolf, M.; Hofmann-Fliri, L. Biomechanical in vitro assessment of screw augmentation in locked plating of proximal humerus fractures. Injury 2013, 44, 1327–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lenich, A.; Mayr, E.; Rüter, A.; Möckl, C.; Füchtmeier, B. First results with the trochanter fixation nail (TFN): A report on 120 cases. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2006, 126, 706–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Erhart, S.; Schmoelz, W.; Blauth, M.; Lenich, A. Biomechanical Effect of Bone Cement Augmentation on Rotational Stability and Pull-Out Strength of the Proximal Femur Nail Antirotation™. Injury 2011, 42, 1322–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Simmermacher, R.K.J.; Ljungqvist, J.; Bail, H.; Hockertz, T.; Vochteloo, A.J.H.; Ochs, U.; vd Werken, C. The new proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA®) in daily practice: Results of a multicentre clinical study. Injury 2008, 39, 932–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Baumgaertner, M.R.; Curtin, S.L.; Lindskog, D.M.; Keggi, J.M. The value of the tip-apex distance in predicting failure of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip. JBJS 1995, 77, 1058–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Unger, S.; Erhart, S.; Kralinger, F.; Blauth, M.; Schmoelz, W. The Effect of In Situ Augmentation on Implant Anchorage in Proximal Humeral Head Fractures. Injury 2012, 43, 1759–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lindtner, R.A.; Schmid, R.; Nydegger, T.; Konschake, M.; Schmoelz, W. Pedicle screw anchorage of carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK screws under cyclic loading. Eur. Spine J. 2018, 27, 1775–1784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bullmann, V.; Schmoelz, W.; Richter, M.; Grathwohl, C.; Schulte, T.L. Revision of Cannulated and Perforated Cement-Augmented Pedicle Screws: A Biomechanical Study in Human Cadavers. Spine 2010, 35, E932–E939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Brunner, A.; Büttler, M.; Lehmann, U.; Frei, H.C.; Kratter, R.; Di Lazzaro, M.; Scola, A.; Sermon, A.; Attal, R. What is the optimal salvage procedure for cut-out after surgical fixation of trochanteric fractures with the PFNA or TFN?: A multicentre study. Injury 2016, 47, 432–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Grechenig, S.; Gänsslen, A.; Gueorguiev, B.; Berner, A.; Müller, M.; Nerlich, M.; Schmitz, P. PMMA-augmented SI screw: A biomechanical analysis of stiffness and pull-out force in a matched paired human cadaveric model. Injury 2015, 46, S125–S128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Schmitz, P.; Baumann, F.; Grechenig, S.; Gaensslen, A.; Nerlich, M.; Müller, M.B. The cement-augmented transiliacal internal fixator (caTIFI): An innovative surgical technique for stabilization of fragility fractures of the pelvis. Injury 2015, 46, S114–S120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Vittore, D.; Vicenti, G.; Caizzi, G.; Abate, A.; Moretti, B. Balloon-assisted reduction, pin fixation and tricalcium phosphate augmentation for calcanear fracture. Injury 2014, 45, S72–S79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Schliemann, B.; Wähnert, D.; Theisen, C.; Herbort, M.; Kösters, C.; Raschke, M.J.; Weimann, A. How to enhance the stability of locking plate fixation of proximal humerus fractures? An overview of current biomechanical and clinical data. Injury 2015, 46, 1207–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Buckley, R.E.; Moran, C.G.; Apivatthakakul, T. AO Principles of Fracture Management, 3rd ed.; Thieme: New York, NY, USA, 2018; ISBN 9783132423091. [Google Scholar]
  50. Prendergast, P.J.; Huiskes, R. The Biomechanics of Wolff’s law: Recent advances. IJMS 1995, 164, 152–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wong, K.C. 3D-printed Patient-specific Applications in Orthopedics. ORR 2016, 8, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wegst, U.G.; Bai, H.; Saiz, E.; Tomsia, A.P.; Ritchie, R.O. Bioinspired structural materials. Nat. Mater. 2015, 14, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Callens, S.; Betts, D.; Müller, R.; Zadpoor, A. The local and global geometry of trabecular bone. Acta Biomater. 2021, 130, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 15 08215 g001
Figure 1. Bioactive Kinetic Screw: (a) design, and (b) filled with phyllosilicates [29].
Figure 1. Bioactive Kinetic Screw: (a) design, and (b) filled with phyllosilicates [29].
Applsci 15 08215 g001
Applsci 15 08215 g002
Figure 2. Bioactive Kinetic Screw conception: (a) cortical bone collected during standard dental implant drilling and bone, blood, and cells collected during drilling of trabecular bone, and (b) synthetic osteoporotic bone compacted inside Bioactive Kinetic Screw [30].
Figure 2. Bioactive Kinetic Screw conception: (a) cortical bone collected during standard dental implant drilling and bone, blood, and cells collected during drilling of trabecular bone, and (b) synthetic osteoporotic bone compacted inside Bioactive Kinetic Screw [30].
Applsci 15 08215 g002
Applsci 15 08215 g003
Figure 3. Measurements: (a) Digital Torque Meter TQ-8801, Lutron, and (b) Bioactive Kinetic Screw measuring 10 mm (length) by 4 mm (diameter), ready for maximum insertion torque and maximum removal torque collection.
Figure 3. Measurements: (a) Digital Torque Meter TQ-8801, Lutron, and (b) Bioactive Kinetic Screw measuring 10 mm (length) by 4 mm (diameter), ready for maximum insertion torque and maximum removal torque collection.
Applsci 15 08215 g003
Table 1. Measurement of MIT and MRT on PCF 10 (osteoporotic bone).
Table 1. Measurement of MIT and MRT on PCF 10 (osteoporotic bone).
PCF 10
Sample		Density (g/cm3)MIT (N/cm)MRT (N/cm)μsf
10.1620211.05
20.1621221.05
30.1620211.05
40.1620211.05
50.1620211.05
Table 2. Comparative summary of the advantages and limitations of the Bioactive Kinetic Screw (BKS) versus Expanding Screws, Cemented Systems, and Traditional Threaded Implants.
Table 2. Comparative summary of the advantages and limitations of the Bioactive Kinetic Screw (BKS) versus Expanding Screws, Cemented Systems, and Traditional Threaded Implants.
FeatureBKSExpanding ScrewsCemented SystemsTraditional Implants
Lateral CompressionNoYesYesYes
Compacts/Collects BoneYesNoNoNo
Requires CementNoNoYesNo
Risk of Thermal NecrosisMinimalModerateHighModerate
Revision FriendlyYesVariableNoYes
Dependence on Bone DensityLowModerateLowHigh
Autograft PotentialYesNoNoNo
Clinical MaturityEmergingModerateEstablishedEstablished
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Andreucci, C.A.; Yaseen, A.; Fonseca, E.M.M. Frictional Cohesive Force and Multifunctional Simple Machine for Advanced Engineering and Biomedical Applications. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 8215. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15158215

AMA Style

Andreucci CA, Yaseen A, Fonseca EMM. Frictional Cohesive Force and Multifunctional Simple Machine for Advanced Engineering and Biomedical Applications. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(15):8215. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15158215

Chicago/Turabian Style

Andreucci, Carlos Aurelio, Ahmed Yaseen, and Elza M. M. Fonseca. 2025. "Frictional Cohesive Force and Multifunctional Simple Machine for Advanced Engineering and Biomedical Applications" Applied Sciences 15, no. 15: 8215. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15158215

APA Style

Andreucci, C. A., Yaseen, A., & Fonseca, E. M. M. (2025). Frictional Cohesive Force and Multifunctional Simple Machine for Advanced Engineering and Biomedical Applications. Applied Sciences, 15(15), 8215. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15158215

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop