Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

E3C for Computational Homogenization in Nonlinear Mechanics

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Hyper-reduction for nonlinear composites reaches ~1% error with point counts on the order of the modes, and ~1200x micro-problem speedups.

desk verdict Solid transfer of E3C to nonlinear mechanics with honest validation, but the <1% claim is only shown for proportional loading and the cluster-average stress approximation is an uncontrolled model-form error. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13631 v1 pith:HDFTZMS4 submitted 2025-01-23 physics.comp-ph

Stephan Wulfinghoff , Jan Hauck This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-ph MSC 74Q0574S05
keywords computationalhomogenizationhyper-reductionmodelorderreductionempiricalcubatureclusteringnonlinearmechanicsRamberg-Osgoodtwo-scalesimulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper extends the Empirically Corrected Cluster Cubature (E3C) method from magnetostatics to nonlinear mechanical homogenization. Its goal is to make two-scale simulations practical by replacing the costly stress evaluation at every finite-element integration point of the micro-problem with a small set of generalized integration points that live in strain space rather than on the mesh. In plane-strain tests on porous and fibre-reinforced microstructures with a Ramberg-Osgood material law, the paper reports hyper-reduction errors of about 1% or less using a number of integration points comparable to the number of reduced modes. In the tested cases the microscopic problem runs roughly 1200 times faster than the full finite-element model, at the price of an offline training step of minutes. If these error levels hold more generally, the method offers a practical route to fast nonlinear multiscale simulation.

What carries the argument

E3C's central object is a set of generalized integration points in strain space. For each phase, finite-element integration points are clustered by k-means in the high-dimensional space of strain-mode vectors $\tilde{\mathbf{E}}(x_p)=(\tilde{E}_1(x_p),\dots,\tilde{E}_{N_{\mathrm{md}}}(x_p))$, weighted by the FE integration domains $\Omega_p^{\mathrm{FE}}$. The cluster average defines a provisional point $\tilde{\mathbf{E}}^q$ with weight $\Omega^q$, and the identity $\varepsilon^q=\bar{\varepsilon}+\sum_{k=1}^{N_{\mathrm{md}}}\xi_k\tilde{E}^q_k=\frac{1}{\Omega^q}\sum_{p\in C_q}\varepsilon(x_p)\Omega_p^{\mathrm{FE}}$ makes the evaluation exact for the cluster-average strain. These points are then moved by a Fletcher-Reeves conjugate-gradient minimization of a cost function built from the hyper-reduced residual and macroscopic-stress errors on training paths, constrained by $\sum_q \tilde{\mathbf{E}}^q\Omega^q=0$ to keep the average fluctuation zero. The machinery turns hyper-reduction into a nonlinear optimization over strain-space point positions rather than a selection among FE integration points.

What would settle it

A concrete check would train E3C with the paper's recommended point counts and then evaluate it on an unseen macroscopic loading direction that drives strong strain localization, for example a Ramberg-Osgood exponent above $p=20$ or a smaller fibre spacing, comparing the macroscopic stress against the fully integrated reduced-order model. If the maximum relative stress error exceeds the roughly 1% level while the point count is still on the order of the mode count, the paper's central accuracy claim is falsified; the observed need for 30 to 40 points at high nonlinearity is the predicted warning sign.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that accurate hyper-reduction for nonlinear mechanical homogenization does not require selecting integration points from the original finite-element mesh. E3C clusters finite-element integration points in the space of strain modes, takes the cluster centers as provisional integration points, and then empirically corrects their positions by minimizing a cost function that measures how well the hyper-reduced model reproduces both the residual equations and the macroscopic stress of the fully integrated reduced-order model over a set of training strain paths. For Ramberg-Osgood-type nonlinearities in plane strain, the paper shows that this yields macroscopic stress errors of $\lesssim 1\%$ with only 7 to 40 integration points, numbers in the order of the mode count $N_{\mathrm{md}}$, across porous and fibre-reinforced microstructures. The same comparisons give a micro-problem speed-up of roughly 1200 relative to the finite-element model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single evaluation of the material law at each cluster-average strain, supplemented by training on a finite set of loading directions, can represent the response of all finite-element integration points in that cluster; this can fail on unseen load paths with strong local strain concentration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A two-scale beam simulation with 800 macroscopic elements completes in about 8.6 seconds on a laptop, so nonlinear FE$^2$-style analyses become feasible at moderate cost.
  • For the porous microstructure with hardening exponent $p=5$, 10 to 15 integration points already give average errors near or below 1%, with a maximum error of 1.18% for 15 points.
  • Stronger nonlinearity and stronger strain localization increase the required point count: the porous $p=10$ case needs up to 40 points and the large-fibre $p=20$ case 30 points to stay near 1% error.
  • Because the point count is already close to the theoretical minimum $N_{\mathrm{md}}/n_T$ below which the reduced system becomes singular, further speed gains must come from reducing the number of modes rather than integration points.
  • The same training loop handles different microstructures by clustering each phase separately, which points to E3C as a general hyper-reduction tool for nonlinear homogenization.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Going beyond the paper's pseudo-elastoplastic tests, E3C should extend to genuinely path-dependent inelastic materials if the training cost function is adapted to history-dependent states; the Ramberg-Osgood law used here does not exercise internal-variable path dependence.
  • The cluster-average stress evaluation in Eq. (15) is exact only for affine material response, so the empirical correction compensates for within-cluster strain fluctuations rather than resolving them; a diagnostic worth testing is whether the number of required points tracks the within-cluster stress variance on unseen loading directions.
  • Because the integration points are defined in strain space rather than on a specific mesh, a trained E3C point set could in principle survive mesh refinement or remeshing as long as the reduced strain modes remain available, although the paper does not demonstrate this.
  • The reported 1200x speedup is for the micro-problem alone on one CPU; in two-scale runs the macroscopic solve rebalances the total cost, as the paper itself observes when refining the macro mesh.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper transfers the empirically corrected cluster cubature (E3C) hyper-reduction method from magnetostatics to nonlinear mechanical computational homogenization. The microscopic strain field is represented in a POD subspace, and the FE quadrature is replaced by generalized integration points in strain-mode space. These points are initialized by k-means clustering of FE integration points and then corrected by minimizing a cost function that compares the hyper-reduced residual and macroscopic stress with the fully integrated reduced-order model on training states. The method is tested in plane strain for porous and fibre-reinforced Ramberg-Osgood microstructures, with error statistics over 100 held-out radial strain directions, and a two-scale beam simulation is presented. The headline claim is that hyper-reduction errors of about 1% or less can be obtained with a number of integration points comparable to the number of modes.

Significance. If the claimed accuracy holds, the contribution is practically valuable: it removes the subset restriction of empirical cubature, reports micro-problem speedups of about 1200 in the tested configurations, and provides reproducible research code. The paper is also commendably transparent: it reports average and maximum errors on unseen directions, states that training parameters were not systematically optimized, and discusses the computational cost of training. At the same time, the central accuracy claim is empirically grounded rather than theoretically guaranteed, and its demonstrated scope is limited to radial loading directions; the cost function as printed contains an error that affects the described training procedure.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2.1, Eq. (17)] The second term of the cost function sums over the fully integrated FE quadrature points (q = 1, ..., N_FE^ip), while \bar{\sigma}_s is defined immediately above as exactly that fully integrated average stress. As written, this term is identically zero for every training state, so the cost function does not enforce the mean-stress matching described in the text. If the intended summation is over the hyper-reduced points (q = 1, ..., N_HR^ip), the equation must be corrected; if not, the description of the empirical correction is inconsistent.
  2. [Sections 4.2.2 and 5.1.2] The training and validation loadings are all radial paths \bar{\varepsilon}(t) = \varepsilon_0 (t/T) N, with unit directions drawn from the same family. Hence the reported errors for 100 unseen directions validate the method only for strain states lying on trained rays in strain space. Since the Ramberg-Osgood law is a total-strain relation, the issue is not path-dependence per se; however, non-proportional loading histories will visit strain states that are superpositions of trained directions and are not covered by the validation. Because Eq. (15) evaluates the nonlinear constitutive law at the cluster-average strain, such off-ray states can excite within-cluster stress variations that the generalized integration points do not represent. The abstract should either restrict the claim to this loading class or additional validation on non-proportional/off-ray paths should be provided.
  3. [Sections 5.1.4 and 5.4] The quantitative support for the abstract's "errors < 1%" statement is weaker than the headline suggests. For the porous microstructure with p = 10, N_HR^ip = 40 gives an average error of 1.0% and a maximum error of 1.59%; for p = 5 with 15 integration points the maximum error is 1.18%. For the large-fibre p = 20 case, 30 integration points are required to reach errors near 1%. Thus the claim is not uniformly true for maximum errors, and the number of integration points is not always "in the order of the number of modes" (e.g., 25 modes versus 40 points in the porous p = 10 case). The abstract and conclusion should be qualified accordingly.
  4. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (13)-(15)] Replacing the cluster stress by \sigma^q(\varepsilon^q) is exact only when the constitutive response is affine within each cluster. For Ramberg-Osgood exponents p = 5, 10, 20, the average of \sigma over a cluster generally differs from \sigma evaluated at the cluster-average strain. The empirical correction in Section 4.2 can move the generalized points so that residuals and mean stresses match the training states, but it does not control this within-cluster model-form error elsewhere. The paper should state this limitation explicitly and, ideally, report a measure of within-cluster strain variance or a validation case that exercises off-training strain states.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1.2] The phrase "for another set of yet another 100 simulations" is redundant; it should read "for a further set of 100 simulations".
  2. [Section 5.3.1 and Figure 3 caption] The statement that "the linear-elastic fibres are represented by a single integration point" should be justified in the text, since it is not obvious that one generalized point exactly represents the fibre phase for all 100 validation directions.
  3. [Section 5.4 and Figure 5 caption] The caption notes that three integration points were used for the fibres in the p = 20, N_HR^ip = 30 case, but the body does not explain how these points are chosen or why the single-point representation is insufficient in that case.
  4. [Section 4.1] The notation "Eqns. (9)1 and (9)2" is awkward; using (9a) and (9b) would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: E3C transfer is disclosed and the error claims are validated on held-out strain directions.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained and the headline error claim is not forced by construction. Section 4.1 constructs cluster centers via Eq. (12), and Eq. (13) is an algebraic identity defining the cluster-average strain; it is not presented as a predictive result. Section 4.2 then explicitly fits generalized integration points by minimizing a cost function (Eqs. 16-17) against the fully integrated reduced-order model on training states. The paper does not hide this fit; it calls the method 'Empirically Corrected'. The claimed errors are measured on 100 held-out validation simulations that were not used in training (Sec. 5.1.2, and analogous assessments in Secs. 5.2-5.4), so the 'about 1%' result is a genuine out-of-sample generalization statistic rather than a restatement of the training objective. The reliance on Wulfinghoff (2024a) for the original E3C idea is disclosed explicitly ('the hyper-reduction technique proposed in Wulfinghoff (2024a) is transferred to mechanics'), and the mechanical formulation is re-derived in the paper, so the self-citation is not load-bearing as proof of the numerical accuracy. The main caveat is that training and validation both use radial strain paths; this is a limitation on the generality of the claim, not circularity. No equation reduces to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical claims rest on the POD subspace assumption, on the cluster-average strain approximation for a nonlinear law, on a training set that must represent online loading, and on an unproven convergence of the CG minimization. The method has several hand-chosen hyperparameters, and the corrected integration points themselves are fitted to training data. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • cost function weight a = 1
    User-defined weight in Eq. (17) balancing residual and stress terms in the empirical correction; chosen by hand and not optimized.
  • training schedule hyperparameters = 30000/10000 CG iterations, about 40 plus more than 100 directions, add 5 worst directions per iteration
    Heuristic parameters of the training procedure in Sec. 4.2.2; the authors acknowledge these were not systematically optimized.
  • mode count Nmd = 15 (porous p=5), 25 (porous p=10), 11-14 (reinforced)
    Selected so that the fully integrated ROM matches FEM within about 1%; varies with microstructure and nonlinearity.
  • number of hyper-reduction points N_HR^ip = 7-40 depending on case
    Swept to reach a target error; the abstract's 'in the order of the number of modes' is not true for the p=10 porous and p=20 large-fibre cases.
  • optimized integration point coordinates and weights = not tabulated; computed by CG minimization during training
    The empirically corrected integration points (tilde E^q and Omega^q) are fitted to training simulation states via the cost function (16)-(17); they are the central data-fitted objects of the method.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The fluctuation field admits a low-dimensional linear subspace (Eq. 4) spanned by POD modes from representative FE snapshots.
    The ROM accuracy relies on this subspace; Nmd is chosen empirically, not from an a priori error bound.
  • domain assumption Integration points with similar strain-mode vectors (Eq. 11) have similar constitutive behavior, so k-means clustering and cluster centers preserve residual and stress (Eqs. 13-15).
    Clustering in mode space replaces many FE points by one generalized point; exact only for affine material laws.
  • domain assumption Training directions (linear strain paths on a hemisphere with feedback) are representative of online loading, and the 100 validation directions are a fair sample.
    Generalization beyond the training envelope is not proven; the conclusion calls for problem-adapted training.
  • standard math Fletcher-Reeves CG minimization from k-means initialization reaches a useful minimum of the cost function (Eqs. 16-17).
    No convergence analysis or initialization study is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The linear-elastic fibre phase can be represented by a single integration point in most cases (Sec. 5.3).
    A modeling simplification that reduces cost; for p=20 large-fibre, three points were needed, showing the assumption is case-dependent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of E3C for Computational Homogenization in Nonlinear Mechanics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HDFTZMS4

@misc{pith2026250113631,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: E3C for Computational Homogenization in Nonlinear Mechanics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HDFTZMS4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13631}
}
read the original abstract

In computational homogenization, a fast solution of the microscopic problem can be achieved by model order reduction in combination with hyper-reduction. Such a technique, which has recently been proposed in the context of magnetostatics, is applied to nonlinear mechanics in this work. The method is called 'Empirically Corrected Cluster Cubature' (E3C), as it combines clustering techniques with an empirical correction step to compute a novel type of integration points, which does not form a subset of the finite element integration points. The method is adopted to the challenges arising in nonlinear mechanics and is tested in plane strain for different microstructures (porous and reinforced) in dependence of the material nonlinearity. The results show that hyper-reduction errors < 1% can be achieved with a comparably small number of integration points, which is in the order of the number of modes. A two-scale example is provided and the research code can be downloaded.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13631 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Ramberg-Osgood law. Center: Mesh. Right: Exemp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Hyper-reduction error E (see Eq. (22)) over number of integration points N HR ip for p = 5. (b) Exemplary comparison of ROM with 15 IPs (HR) vs. full integration (FI) with the purpose to illustrate the maximum hyper-reduction error of 1.18% amongst all 100 validation simulations. (c) Enlargement of the marked region in (b), showing the hσ11i-component. 5.1.3 Assessment of the computational effort The probably mo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Mesh of the reinforced composite. (b) Maximum and av [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Plane-strain two-scale simulation of a beam with dimen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Mesh of the reinforced composite. (b) Maximum and av [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A hyperreduced manifold learning approach to nonlinear model order reduction for the homogenisation of hyperelastic RVEs

    cs.CE 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A manifold-learning reduced-order model with DEIM and LSPG hyperreduction achieves two orders of magnitude speedup with ~0.1% error on an example hyperelastic RVE homogenisation problem.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize ":" * " " *...

  3. [3]

    C., Patera, A

    Barrault, M., Maday, Y., Nguyen, N. C., Patera, A. T., 2004. An ‘empirical interpolation method: application to efficient reduced-basis discretization of partial differential equations. Comptes Rendus Math \'e matique 339 (9), 667--672

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Reduced-order modelling and homogenisation in magneto-mechanics: A numerical comparison of established hyper-reduction methods

    Brands, B., Davydov, D., Mergheim, J., Steinmann, P., 2019. Reduced-order modelling and homogenisation in magneto-mechanics: A numerical comparison of established hyper-reduction methods. Mathematical and Computational Applications 24 (1), 20

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Efficient non-linear model reduction via a least-squares P etrov-- G alerkin projection and compressive tensor approximations

    Carlberg, K., Bou-Mosleh, C., Farhat, C., 2011. Efficient non-linear model reduction via a least-squares P etrov-- G alerkin projection and compressive tensor approximations. International Journal for numerical methods in engineering 86 (2), 155--181

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    C., 2009

    Chaturantabut, S., Sorensen, D. C., 2009. Discrete empirical interpolation for nonlinear model reduction. In: Decision and Control, 2009 held jointly with the 2009 28th Chinese Control Conference. CDC/CCC 2009. Proceedings of the 48th IEEE Conference on. IEEE, pp. 4316--4321

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    How to generate equidistributed points on the surface of a sphere

    Deserno, M., 2004. How to generate equidistributed points on the surface of a sphere. If Polymerforshung (Ed.)

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    M., 1964

    Fletcher, R., Reeves, C. M., 1964. Function minimization by conjugate gradients. The computer journal 7 (2), 149--154

    work page 1964

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    A multiscale method for periodic structures using domain decomposition and E C M -hyperreduction

    Hern \'a ndez, J., 2020. A multiscale method for periodic structures using domain decomposition and E C M -hyperreduction. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 368, 113192

    2020

  2. [10]

    E., Caicedo, M., Cante, J., 2014

    Hern \'a ndez, J., Oliver, J., Huespe, A. E., Caicedo, M., Cante, J., 2014. High-performance model reduction techniques in computational multiscale homogenization. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 276, 149--189

    2014

  3. [11]

    A., Caicedo, M

    Hernandez, J. A., Caicedo, M. A., Ferrer, A., 2017. Dimensional hyper-reduction of nonlinear finite element models via empirical cubature. Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering 313, 687--722

    2017

  4. [12]

    An approach to micro-macro modeling of heterogeneous materials

    Kouznetsova, V., Brekelmans, W., Baaijens, F., 2001. An approach to micro-macro modeling of heterogeneous materials. Computational Mechanics 27 (1), 37--48

    2001

  5. [13]

    A monolithic hyper rom fe2 method with clustered training at finite deformations

    Lange, N., H \"u tter, G., Kiefer, B., 2024. A monolithic hyper rom fe2 method with clustered training at finite deformations. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 418, 116522

    2024

  6. [14]

    K., 2016

    Liu, Z., Bessa, M., Liu, W. K., 2016. Self-consistent clustering analysis: an efficient multi-scale scheme for inelastic heterogeneous materials. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 306, 319--341

    2016

  7. [15]

    Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations

    MacQueen, J., et al., 1967. Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In: Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability. Vol. 1. Oakland, CA, USA., pp. 281--297

    1967

  8. [16]

    Computational homogenization analysis in finite plasticity simulation of texture development in polycrystalline materials

    Miehe, C., Schr \"o der, J., Schotte, J., 1999. Computational homogenization analysis in finite plasticity simulation of texture development in polycrystalline materials. Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering 171 (3-4), 387--418

    1999

  9. [17]

    Stationary variational estimates for the effective response and field fluctuations in nonlinear composites

    Ponte Casta \ n eda, P., 2016. Stationary variational estimates for the effective response and field fluctuations in nonlinear composites. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 96, 660--682

    2016

  10. [18]

    R., 1943

    Ramberg, W., Osgood, W. R., 1943. Description of stress-strain curves by three parameters. Tech. Rep. 902, NACA

    1943

  11. [19]

    Hyper-reduction of mechanical models involving internal variables

    Ryckelynck, D., 2009. Hyper-reduction of mechanical models involving internal variables. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 77 (1), 75--89

    2009

  12. [20]

    Prediction of the mechanical behavior of nonlinear heterogeneous systems by multi-level finite element modeling

    Smit, R., Brekelmans, W., Meijer, H., 1998. Prediction of the mechanical behavior of nonlinear heterogeneous systems by multi-level finite element modeling. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 155 (1-2), 181--192

    1998

  13. [21]

    L., 2018

    Taylor, R. L., 2018. F E A P -- A finite element analysis program

    2018

  14. [22]

    A., Remmers, J

    van Tuijl, R. A., Remmers, J. J., Geers, M. G., 2018. Integration efficiency for model reduction in micro-mechanical analyses. Computational mechanics 62, 151--169

    2018

  15. [23]

    Empirically corrected cluster cubature (e3c)

    Wulfinghoff, S., 2024 a . Empirically corrected cluster cubature (e3c). Preprint. ://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5043816

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Statistically compatible hyper-reduction for computational homogenization

    Wulfinghoff, S., 2024 b . Statistically compatible hyper-reduction for computational homogenization. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 420, 116744

    2024

  17. [25]

    Model order reduction of nonlinear homogenization problems using a hashin--shtrikman type finite element method

    Wulfinghoff, S., Cavaliere, F., Reese, S., 2018. Model order reduction of nonlinear homogenization problems using a hashin--shtrikman type finite element method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 330, 149--179

    2018

  18. [26]

    The reduced model multiscale method ( R3M ) for the non-linear homogenization of hyperelastic media at finite strains

    Yvonnet, J., He, Q.-C., 2007. The reduced model multiscale method ( R3M ) for the non-linear homogenization of hyperelastic media at finite strains. Journal of Computational Physics 223 (1), 341--368

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.