The Experts below are selected from a list of 7410 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Larry Lessard - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
load sharing in single lap bonded bolted composite joints part ii global sensitivity analysis
Composite Structures, 2015Co-Authors: Kobye Bodjona, Larry LessardAbstract:Abstract Bonded/bolted joints in composites are potentially stronger and more durable than the underlying bonded and bolted joints separately. While recent experimental work has revealed that the most significant “across-the-board” improvements (compared to both constituent joints) are obtained when there is substantial load sharing between the Adhesive and bolts, there is currently limited understanding of how load sharing works and how it can most effectively be achieved. In order to answer this question, this work presents an extensive global sensitivity analysis of a computational model of a single-bolt, single-lap composite joint containing an elastic–Plastic Adhesive. This model was previously developed and validated in part I of the paper. The objective of the sensitivity analysis was to quantify the relative importance of the different joint design parameters (factors) in load sharing. It was determined that Adhesive yield strength is singularly the most important factor, by between 2 and 9 times depending on the level of load applied to the joint. The joint E / D ratio, Adhesive hardening slope and Adhesive thickness were found to be other significant factors influencing load sharing. For designs in which the Adhesive overlap did not fully Plasticise, no significant proportion (⩽10%) of the applied load was found to be transferred to the bolt.
-
load sharing in single lap bonded bolted composite joints part ii global sensitivity analysis
Composite Structures, 2015Co-Authors: Kobye Bodjona, Larry LessardAbstract:Abstract Bonded/bolted joints in composites are potentially stronger and more durable than the underlying bonded and bolted joints separately. While recent experimental work has revealed that the most significant “across-the-board” improvements (compared to both constituent joints) are obtained when there is substantial load sharing between the Adhesive and bolts, there is currently limited understanding of how load sharing works and how it can most effectively be achieved. In order to answer this question, this work presents an extensive global sensitivity analysis of a computational model of a single-bolt, single-lap composite joint containing an elastic–Plastic Adhesive. This model was previously developed and validated in part I of the paper. The objective of the sensitivity analysis was to quantify the relative importance of the different joint design parameters (factors) in load sharing. It was determined that Adhesive yield strength is singularly the most important factor, by between 2 and 9 times depending on the level of load applied to the joint. The joint E/D ratio, Adhesive hardening slope and Adhesive thickness were found to be other significant factors influencing load sharing. For designs in which the Adhesive overlap did not fully Plasticise, no significant proportion (⩽10%) of the applied load was found to be transferred to the bolt.
Kobye Bodjona - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
load sharing in single lap bonded bolted composite joints part ii global sensitivity analysis
Composite Structures, 2015Co-Authors: Kobye Bodjona, Larry LessardAbstract:Abstract Bonded/bolted joints in composites are potentially stronger and more durable than the underlying bonded and bolted joints separately. While recent experimental work has revealed that the most significant “across-the-board” improvements (compared to both constituent joints) are obtained when there is substantial load sharing between the Adhesive and bolts, there is currently limited understanding of how load sharing works and how it can most effectively be achieved. In order to answer this question, this work presents an extensive global sensitivity analysis of a computational model of a single-bolt, single-lap composite joint containing an elastic–Plastic Adhesive. This model was previously developed and validated in part I of the paper. The objective of the sensitivity analysis was to quantify the relative importance of the different joint design parameters (factors) in load sharing. It was determined that Adhesive yield strength is singularly the most important factor, by between 2 and 9 times depending on the level of load applied to the joint. The joint E / D ratio, Adhesive hardening slope and Adhesive thickness were found to be other significant factors influencing load sharing. For designs in which the Adhesive overlap did not fully Plasticise, no significant proportion (⩽10%) of the applied load was found to be transferred to the bolt.
-
load sharing in single lap bonded bolted composite joints part ii global sensitivity analysis
Composite Structures, 2015Co-Authors: Kobye Bodjona, Larry LessardAbstract:Abstract Bonded/bolted joints in composites are potentially stronger and more durable than the underlying bonded and bolted joints separately. While recent experimental work has revealed that the most significant “across-the-board” improvements (compared to both constituent joints) are obtained when there is substantial load sharing between the Adhesive and bolts, there is currently limited understanding of how load sharing works and how it can most effectively be achieved. In order to answer this question, this work presents an extensive global sensitivity analysis of a computational model of a single-bolt, single-lap composite joint containing an elastic–Plastic Adhesive. This model was previously developed and validated in part I of the paper. The objective of the sensitivity analysis was to quantify the relative importance of the different joint design parameters (factors) in load sharing. It was determined that Adhesive yield strength is singularly the most important factor, by between 2 and 9 times depending on the level of load applied to the joint. The joint E/D ratio, Adhesive hardening slope and Adhesive thickness were found to be other significant factors influencing load sharing. For designs in which the Adhesive overlap did not fully Plasticise, no significant proportion (⩽10%) of the applied load was found to be transferred to the bolt.
Schott D.l. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A validated co-simulation of grab and moist iron ore cargo: Replicating the cohesive and stress-history dependent behaviour of bulk solids
'Elsevier BV', 2021Co-Authors: Mohajeri M., Helmons R.l.j., Van Rhee C., De Kluijver Wilbert, Schott D.l.Abstract:The traditional design approach of grabs and other bulk handling equipment consists of manufacturing and testing physical prototypes. A novel design approach is to use a co-simulation of MultiBody Dynamics (MBD) and Discrete Element Method (DEM), in which the virtual prototype of a new concept interacts with bulk solids. Therefore, this study develops and validates a full-scale co-simulation that models the grabbing process of cohesive and stress-history dependent iron ore. First, by executing in-situ measurements during the unloading of a vessel, grab-relevant bulk properties of the cargo, such as penetration resistance, are determined. Second, full-scale grabbing experiments are conducted in the cargo hold, which allows the process to be recorded in realistic operational conditions. Third, full-scale co-simulation is set up using the material model that has been calibrated based on an elasto-Plastic Adhesive contact model. Fourth, the co-simulation is validated by comparing its predictions to experimental data from various aspects, such as the force in cables and the torque in winches. The validated co-simulation proves that the stress-dependent behaviour of cohesive cargo as it interacts with the grab could be captured successfully. Valuable information such as a grab's kinematics and dynamics, as well as the porosity distribution of collected bulk solids, can be extracted from the simulation, supporting engineers to enhance the design and operation of equipment.
-
Systematic design optimization of grabs considering bulk cargo variability
'Elsevier BV', 2021Co-Authors: Mohajeri M., Van Den Bergh, Arjan J., Jovanova J., Schott D.l.Abstract:Ship unloader grabs are usually designed using the manufacturer's in-house knowledge based on a traditional physical prototyping approach. The grab performance depends greatly on the properties of the bulk material being handled. By considering the bulk cargo variability in the design process, the grab performance can be improved significantly. A multi-objective simulation-based optimization framework is therefore established to include bulk cargo variability in the design process of grabs. The primary objective is to reach a maximized and consistent performance in handling a variety of iron ore cargoes. First, a range of bulk materials is created by varying levels of cohesive forces and Plasticity in the elasto-Plastic Adhesive DEM contact model. The sensitivity analysis of the grabbing process to the bulk variability allowed three classes of iron ore materials to be selected that have significant influence on the product performance. Second, 25 different grab designs are generated using a random sampling method, Latin Hypercube Design, to be assessed as to their handling of the three classes of iron ore materials. Of this range of grab designs, optimal solutions are found using surrogate modelling-based optimization and the NSGA-II genetic algorithm. The optimization outcome is verified by comparing predictions of the optimization algorithm and results of DEM-MBD co-simulation. The established optimization framework offers a straightforward and reliable tool for designing grabs and other similar equipment.
-
A validated co-simulation of grab and moist iron ore cargo: Replicating the cohesive and stress-history dependent behaviour of bulk solids
'Elsevier BV', 2021Co-Authors: Mohajeri M., Helmons R.l.j., Van Rhee C., De Kluijver Wilbert, Schott D.l.Abstract:The traditional design approach of grabs and other bulk handling equipment consists of manufacturing and testing physical prototypes. A novel design approach is to use a co-simulation of MultiBody Dynamics (MBD) and Discrete Element Method (DEM), in which the virtual prototype of a new concept interacts with bulk solids. Therefore, this study develops and validates a full-scale co-simulation that models the grabbing process of cohesive and stress-history dependent iron ore. First, by executing in-situ measurements during the unloading of a vessel, grab-relevant bulk properties of the cargo, such as penetration resistance, are determined. Second, full-scale grabbing experiments are conducted in the cargo hold, which allows the process to be recorded in realistic operational conditions. Third, full-scale co-simulation is set up using the material model that has been calibrated based on an elasto-Plastic Adhesive contact model. Fourth, the co-simulation is validated by comparing its predictions to experimental data from various aspects, such as the force in cables and the torque in winches. The validated co-simulation proves that the stress-dependent behaviour of cohesive cargo as it interacts with the grab could be captured successfully. Valuable information such as a grab's kinematics and dynamics, as well as the porosity distribution of collected bulk solids, can be extracted from the simulation, supporting engineers to enhance the design and operation of equipment.Transport Engineering and LogisticsOffshore and Dredging EngineeringRivers, Ports, Waterways and Dredging Engineerin
-
Systematic design optimization of grabs considering bulk cargo variability
'Elsevier BV', 2021Co-Authors: Mohajeri M., Van Den Bergh, Arjan J., Jovanova J., Schott D.l.Abstract:Ship unloader grabs are usually designed using the manufacturer's in-house knowledge based on a traditional physical prototyping approach. The grab performance depends greatly on the properties of the bulk material being handled. By considering the bulk cargo variability in the design process, the grab performance can be improved significantly. A multi-objective simulation-based optimization framework is therefore established to include bulk cargo variability in the design process of grabs. The primary objective is to reach a maximized and consistent performance in handling a variety of iron ore cargoes. First, a range of bulk materials is created by varying levels of cohesive forces and Plasticity in the elasto-Plastic Adhesive DEM contact model. The sensitivity analysis of the grabbing process to the bulk variability allowed three classes of iron ore materials to be selected that have significant influence on the product performance. Second, 25 different grab designs are generated using a random sampling method, Latin Hypercube Design, to be assessed as to their handling of the three classes of iron ore materials. Of this range of grab designs, optimal solutions are found using surrogate modelling-based optimization and the NSGA-II genetic algorithm. The optimization outcome is verified by comparing predictions of the optimization algorithm and results of DEM-MBD co-simulation. The established optimization framework offers a straightforward and reliable tool for designing grabs and other similar equipment.Transport Engineering and Logistic
-
A hybrid particle-geometric scaling approach for elasto-Plastic Adhesive DEM contact models
'Elsevier BV', 2020Co-Authors: Mohajeri M., Helmons R.l.j., Van Rhee C., Schott D.l.Abstract:The computation time of Discrete Element Method (DEM) simulations increases exponentially when particle size is reduced or the number of particles increased. This critical challenge limits the use of DEM simulation for industrial applications, such as powder flow in silos. Scaling techniques can offer a solution to reduce computation time. In this paper, we have developed a hybrid particle-geometric scaling approach with a focus on Elasto-Plastic Adhesive contact models. It established relationships between particle scaling factors and DEM contact input parameters. The isolated effects of varying particle size and geometric dimensions on bulk properties were also evaluated using uniaxial consolidation, static angle of repose, and ring shear tests. This paper shows how the particle scaling can be applied together with geometric scaling to incorporate two important aspects of bulk materials, their Elasto-Plastic behaviour and their cohesive forces.
Alghamdi Abdullah - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Use of Plastic Adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection (Review)
'Wiley', 2015Co-Authors: Webster Joan, Alghamdi AbdullahAbstract:Background: Surgical site infection has been estimated to occur in about 15% of clean surgery and 30% of contaminated surgery cases. Using Plastic Adhesive drapes to protect the wound from organisms that may be present on the surrounding skin during surgery is one strategy used to prevent surgical site infection. Results from non-randomised studies have produced conflicting results about the efficacy of this approach. A systematic review was required to guide clinical practice. Objectives: To assess the effect of Adhesive drapes used during surgery on surgical site infection, cost, mortality and morbidity. Search methods: For this fourth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 4th March 2015); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (2012 to 3rd March 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 2012 to 3rd March 2015); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to 3rd March 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to 4th March 2015). Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing any Plastic Adhesive drape with no Plastic Adhesive drape, used alone or in combination with woven (material) drapes or disposable (paper) drapes, in patients undergoing any type of surgery. Ring drapes were excluded. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected and assessed studies for trial quality and both independently extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Main results: We identified no new studies for this fourth update. The review includes five studies involving 3082 participants comparing Plastic Adhesive drapes with no drapes and two studies involving 1113 participants comparing iodine-impregnated Adhesive drapes with no drapes. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the Adhesive drape group developed a surgical site infection when compared with no drapes (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.48, P = 0.03). Iodine-impregnated Adhesive drapes had no effect on the surgical site infection rate (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.66, P = 0.89). Length of hospital stay was similar in the Adhesive drape and non-Adhesive drape groups. Authors' conclusions: There was no evidence from the seven trials that Plastic Adhesive drapes reduce surgical site infection rates, and some evidence that they increase infection rates. Further trials may be justified, using blinded outcome assessment to examine the effect of Adhesive drapes on surgical site infection, based on different wound classifications
-
Use of Plastic Adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection (Review)
'Wiley', 2013Co-Authors: Webster Joan, Alghamdi AbdullahAbstract:Background: Surgical site infection has been estimated to occur in about 15% of clean surgery and 30% of contaminated surgery cases. Using Plastic Adhesive drapes to protect the wound from organisms that may be present on the surrounding skin during surgery is one strategy used to prevent surgical site infection. Results from non-randomised studies have produced conflicting results about the efficacy of this approach, but no systematic review has been conducted to date to guide clinical practice. Objectives: To assess the effect of Adhesive drapes used during surgery on surgical site infection, cost, mortality and morbidity. Search methods: For this third update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 19 July 2012); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July Week 2, 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, July 18, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to Week 28, 2012); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to July 6, 2012). Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing any Plastic Adhesive drape with no Plastic Adhesive drape, used alone or in combination with woven (material) drapes or disposable (paper) drapes, in patients undergoing any type of surgery. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected and assessed studies for trial quality and both independently extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Main results: We identified no new studies for this third update. The review includes five studies involving 3082 participants comparing Plastic Adhesive drapes with no drapes and two studies involving 1113 participants comparing iodine-impregnated Adhesive drapes with no drapes. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the Adhesive drape group developed a surgical site infection when compared with no drapes (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.48, P = 0.03). Iodine-impregnated Adhesive drapes had no effect on the surgical site infection rate (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.66, P = 0.89). Length of hospital stay was similar in the Adhesive drape and non-Adhesive drape groups. Authors' conclusions: There was no evidence from the seven trials that Plastic Adhesive drapes reduce surgical site infection rates, and some evidence that they increase infection rates. Further trials may be justified, using blinded outcome assessment to examine the effect of Adhesive drapes on surgical site infection, based on different wound classifications
-
Use of Plastic Adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection (Review)
John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2007Co-Authors: Webster Joan, Alghamdi AbdullahAbstract:Background\ud Surgical site infection has been estimated to occur in about 15% of clean surgery and 30% of contaminated surgery. Using Plastic Adhesive drapes to protect the wound from organisms that may be present on the surrounding skin during surgery is one strategy used to prevent surgical site infection. Results from non-randomised studies have produced conflicting results about the efficacy of this approach but no systematic review has been conducted to date to guide clinical practice.\ud \ud Objectives\ud To assess the effect of Adhesive drapes used during surgery on surgical site infection, cost, mortality and morbidity.\ud \ud Search strategy\ud We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (last searched 24/4/07), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2,2007), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to April Week 2, 2007), Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2007 Week 16), and Ovid CINAHL (1982 to 1980 to April Week 2 2007).\ud \ud Selection criteria\ud Randomised controlled trials comparing any Plastic Adhesive drape with no Adhesive drape, used alone or in combination with woven (material) drapes or disposable (paper) drapes in patients undergoing any type of surgery.\ud \ud Data collection & analysis\ud Two authors independently selected and assessed studies for trial quality and both independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.\ud \ud Main results\ud This review includes five studies involving 3,082 participants comparing Adhesive drapes with no drape and two studies involving 1,113 participants comparing iodine-impregnated Adhesive drapes with no drape. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the Adhesive drape group developed a surgical site infection when compared with no drape. (Relative Risk (RR) 1.23, 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) 1.02 to 1.48, p=0.03). Iodine-impregnated Adhesive drapes had no effect on the surgical site infection rate (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.064 to 1.66, p=0.89). Length of hospital stay was similar in Adhesive drape and non-Adhesive drape groups.\ud \ud Reviewers' conclusions\ud There was no evidence from the seven trials that Plastic Adhesive drapes reduces surgical site infection rate and some evidence that they increase infection rates. \ud \ud Further trials may be justified using blinded outcome assessment to examine the effect of Adhesive drapes on surgical site infection based on different wound classifications
-
Use of Plastic Adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection
'Wiley', 2007Co-Authors: Webster Joan, Alghamdi AbdullahAbstract:Background: Surgical site infection has been estimated to occur in about 15% of clean surgery and 30% of contaminated surgery cases. Using Plastic Adhesive drapes to protect the wound from organisms that may be present on the surrounding skin during surgery is one strategy used to prevent surgical site infection. Results from non-randomised studies have produced conflicting results about the efficacy of this approach, but no systematic review has been conducted to date to guide clinical practice. Objectives: To assess the effect of Adhesive drapes used during surgery on surgical site infection, cost, mortality and morbidity. Search methods: For this third update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 19 July 2012); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July Week 2, 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, July 18, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to Week 28, 2012); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to July 6, 2012). Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing any Plastic Adhesive drape with no Plastic Adhesive drape, used alone or in combination with woven (material) drapes or disposable (paper) drapes, in patients undergoing any type of surgery. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected and assessed studies for trial quality and both independently extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Main results: We identified no new studies for this third update. The review includes five studies involving 3082 participants comparing Plastic Adhesive drapes with no drapes and two studies involving 1113 participants comparing iodine-impregnated Adhesive drapes with no drapes. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the Adhesive drape group developed a surgical site infection when compared with no drapes (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.48, P = 0.03). Iodine-impregnated Adhesive drapes had no effect on the surgical site infection rate (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.66, P = 0.89). Length of hospital stay was similar in the Adhesive drape and non-Adhesive drape groups. Authors' conclusions: There was no evidence from the seven trials that Plastic Adhesive drapes reduce surgical site infection rates, and some evidence that they increase infection rates. Further trials may be justified, using blinded outcome assessment to examine the effect of Adhesive drapes on surgical site infection, based on different wound classifications
-
Use of Plastic Adhesive Drapes During Surgery for Preventing Surgical Site Infection
'Wiley', 2007Co-Authors: Webster Joan, Alghamdi AbdullahAbstract:Background Surgical site infection has been estimated to occur in about 15% of clean surgery and 30% of contaminated surgery. Using Plastic Adhesive drapes to protect the wound from organisms that may be present on the surrounding skin during surgery is one strategy used to prevent surgical site infection. Results from non-randomised studies have produced conflicting results about the efficacy of this approach but no systematic review has been conducted to date to guide clinical practice. Objectives To assess the effect of Adhesive drapes used during surgery on surgical site infection, cost, mortality and morbidity. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (last searched 24/4/07), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2,2007), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to April Week 2, 2007), Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2007 Week 16), and Ovid CINAHL (1982 to 1980 to April Week 2 2007). Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials comparing any Plastic Adhesive drape with no Adhesive drape, used alone or in combination with woven (material) drapes or disposable (paper) drapes in patients undergoing any type of surgery. Data collection & analysis Two authors independently selected and assessed studies for trial quality and both independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Main results This review includes five studies involving 3,082 participants comparing Adhesive drapes with no drape and two studies involving 1,113 participants comparing iodine-impregnated Adhesive drapes with no drape. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the Adhesive drape group developed a surgical site infection when compared with no drape. (Relative Risk (RR) 1.23, 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) 1.02 to 1.48, p=0.03). Iodine-impregnated Adhesive drapes had no effect on the surgical site infection rate (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.064 to 1.66, p=0.89). Length of hospital stay was similar in Adhesive drape and non-Adhesive drape groups. Reviewers' conclusions There was no evidence from the seven trials that Plastic Adhesive drapes reduces surgical site infection rate and some evidence that they increase infection rates. Further trials may be justified using blinded outcome assessment to examine the effect of Adhesive drapes on surgical site infection based on different wound classifications
Abdullah Alghamdi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
use of Plastic Adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2015Co-Authors: Joan Webster, Abdullah AlghamdiAbstract:Background Surgical site infection has been estimated to occur in about 15% of clean surgery and 30% of contaminated surgery cases. Using Plastic Adhesive drapes to protect the wound from organisms that may be present on the surrounding skin during surgery is one strategy used to prevent surgical site infection. Results from non-randomised studies have produced conflicting results about the efficacy of this approach. A systematic review was required to guide clinical practice. Objectives To assess the effect of Adhesive drapes used during surgery on surgical site infection, cost, mortality and morbidity. Search methods For this fourth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 4th March 2015); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (2012 to 3rd March 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 2012 to 3rd March 2015); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to 3rd March 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to 4th March 2015). Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials comparing any Plastic Adhesive drape with no Plastic Adhesive drape, used alone or in combination with woven (material) drapes or disposable (paper) drapes, in patients undergoing any type of surgery. Ring drapes were excluded. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected and assessed studies for trial quality and both independently extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Main results We identified no new studies for this fourth update. The review includes five studies involving 3082 participants comparing Plastic Adhesive drapes with no drapes and two studies involving 1113 participants comparing iodine-impregnated Adhesive drapes with no drapes. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the Adhesive drape group developed a surgical site infection when compared with no drapes (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.48, P = 0.03). Iodine-impregnated Adhesive drapes had no effect on the surgical site infection rate (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.66, P = 0.89). Length of hospital stay was similar in the Adhesive drape and non-Adhesive drape groups. Authors' conclusions There was no evidence from the seven trials that Plastic Adhesive drapes reduce surgical site infection rates, and some evidence that they increase infection rates. Further trials may be justified, using blinded outcome assessment to examine the effect of Adhesive drapes on surgical site infection, based on different wound classifications.