Under the ERM model, every lineage has an identical and constant rate of splitting to form new lineages (the actual rate of splitting has no effect).
Such grafting provides sufficient coverage without risk of rejection, although meta-analyses have yet to determine the failure rate of split-thickness skin grafts in burn patients.
While the rate is constant for split A, the rates of split B depend on utilization, and those for split C depend both on utilization and on the MCS distribution.
Using the busy hour utilization and MCS distribution, it is possible to calculate the probability distribution of the data rates of split A, B, and C and for the three different RATs introduced in Table 1.
However, the higher order modulation schemes could ultimately require a higher quantization resolution, both in time and frequency domain, thus increasing the peak transport data rates of split A and B as well.
In addition, split C, which exhibits the highest variability of per-cell traffic due to its dependence on both the overall load and the utilized MCS, shows the highest gains, while the static rates of split A do not offer any statistical multiplexing.
The transport rates of splits A and B, in contrast, do not directly depend on the spectral efficiency.
This scenario, however, is not compatible with recent observations of a large portion of asymmetric nucleosomes (Voigt et al., 2012) and with the small rates of splitting of H3 H4 tetrameres during cell division (Xu et al., 2010).
The quality and accuracy of the scan of the patient's affected limb plays a critical role in determining the success rate of the split model subsequently designed.
Further, sum of strain energy release rates at a given crack growth rate of both split cracks is equal to that of a single crack under the biaxial fatigue without phase difference.
