Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Fracture of disordered and stochastic lattice materials

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The first failure in a disordered lattice is a calculable probability, set by the product of each strut's chance of surviving the crack-tip stress field.

desk verdict Clever coupling of Weibull stochasticity and von Mises disorder, but Eq. (8) double-counts shared ligaments, so the central survival probability is wrong as written and the claimed agreement with FE needs re-examination. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21187 v1 pith:SXOZ2IJV submitted 2025-08-28 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Sage Fulco , Prashant K. Purohit , Michal K. Budzik , Kevin T. Turner This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords latticemetamaterialsfractureinitiationstrengthscattergeometricdisorderdamagezonefracto-cohesivelengthrepresentativevolumeelementfailure-loaddistribution
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

The paper sets out to prove that the first failure in a lattice metamaterial is not a deterministic event but a calculable probability, governed by two independent sources of scatter: the strength of individual struts and the geometric disorder of the lattice itself. It constructs a product-of-survival formula—one factor per node—that turns a crack-tip stress field plus these two scatter distributions into the cumulative probability that some ligament breaks at a given applied load. Finite-element simulations of ordered and disordered triangular lattices reproduce the predicted first-failure-load distributions, including the drop in mean load and the widening variance as scatter increases. The same calculation yields a fracto-cohesive length and a representative volume element size, giving criteria for when failure is truly a fracture process rather than a strength-limited event. A damage-zone extension estimates steady-state toughness, showing disorder enlarges the zone and can raise toughness while stochasticity's energy-density penalty offsets much of that gain.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Eq. (8), a product-of-survival CDF: F_f ≈ 1 − ∏_j [1 − P_f(r_j, θ_j)]. It converts local failure probabilities—each built from the strength-scatter CDF of Eq. (5) and the circular angular distribution of Eq. (6), fused in Eq. (7)—into the probability that the specimen has failed somewhere under a given far-field load. The work this object does is to let the model predict the full distribution of damage-initiation loads, not just an average, and to give analytic expressions for derived length scales such as the fracto-cohesive length and the RVE dimensions.

What would settle it

Take a lattice with cells deliberately made a significant fraction of the predicted process-zone size—so the continuum K-field assumption is violated—and record first-failure loads over many trials; if the histogram drifts away from the derivative of Eq. (8) in the direction expected from the near-tip stress error, the assumption is doing the work. Alternatively, measure strut-level strain maps near a stationary crack: a systematic deviation from Eq. (3) at radial distances beyond one cell would falsify the stress assignment directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Eq. (8): the probability that damage has initiated somewhere in the specimen is approximately one minus the product, over all nodes, of the probability that no ligament around that node has failed. Each node's failure probability is built from a standard brittle-material strength-scatter CDF evaluated at the axial stress that a mode-I crack-tip K-field puts in each of the six strut orientations, with geometric disorder averaged in through a circular probability distribution over ligament angles. The paper argues this product is exact for damage initiation—the first broken ligament—because before any failure the assumed stress field is still intact. The derivative of Eq.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the continuum crack-tip stress field remains a faithful description of strut-level stresses down to the lattice scale, so each beam's axial stress can be read from Eq. (3); the paper itself notes the field deviates within one unit cell of the tip, so a lattice whose cells are not much smaller than the process zone would undermine the whole probability calculation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The distribution of first-failure loads becomes an output: as strength scatter increases, the mean load drops and the relative spread grows by roughly a factor of four in the paper's ordered-lattice example.
  • Engineers can use the predicted fracto-cohesive length to decide whether a lattice with a known defect fails by fracture (defect-size dependent) or by strength (defect-size independent), and the RVE size to decide when continuum homogenization is valid.
  • The shape of the failure-load distribution is diagnostic: stochastic ordered lattices stay in the same family as the strength-scatter CDF, while disordered lattices are better fitted by a normal distribution, explaining a previously empirical observation.
  • Larger damage zones from disorder and stochasticity raise dissipated energy, but stochasticity lowers the local strain-energy density; the model predicts limited net toughness gains from stochasticity and a clearer toughening route through geometric disorder.
  • The framework is not limited to triangular lattices or one failure CDF; any stretch-dominated lattice geometry and any suitable failure distribution can enter the same product-of-survival construction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same construction should carry over to mixed-mode or compressive stress fields, since the projection of a continuum stress onto strut axes is not specific to mode I; the main requirement is a well-defined axial stress and a working failure CDF.
  • The near-tip region where the K-field diverges is the model's soft spot; replacing the singular field with a finite-tip correction inside one unit cell would likely remove the under-prediction the paper observes at short radial distances and sharpen the initiation distribution.
  • Because the model outputs a full probability distribution, matching experimental histograms of first-failure load could serve as an inverse characterization route: fitting the strength-scatter and disorder parameters from a few dozen tests would fingerprint a fabricated lattice.
  • The predicted RVE size suggests a practical testing rule: lattices smaller than roughly 24 to 30 cells across should not be treated by continuum fracture mechanics, which may explain size effects in small-scale metamaterial specimens.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a probabilistic analytic framework for predicting damage initiation in disordered and stochastic lattice materials under mode I fracture. The model combines a continuum K-field expression for ligament axial stress (Eq. 3), a Weibull failure CDF (Eq. 5), and a von Mises distribution for ligament angular disorder (Eq. 6) to write a node-based survival product (Eq. 8). The derivative of this CDF gives the distribution of the first-failure load, which is compared with finite element simulations for ordered and disordered triangular lattices. The manuscript also derives the fracto-cohesive length (Eq. 10), an RVE size estimate (Eqs. 11-14), and a process-zone-based toughness scaling (Eq. 15). The FE validation includes a comparison of failure-location probabilities with the analytic model and an independent check of the K-field assumption for different lattice sizes (Fig. 5).

Significance. A closed-form probabilistic model that couples material stochasticity and geometric disorder to predict first-failure loads in lattice metamaterials would be a useful design tool. The paper has several strengths: the stress-field comparison in Fig. 5 is an independent test of the continuum assumption; the FE procedure uses a clear, physically motivated failure rule; and the model yields falsifiable predictions for the mean and variance of failure loads and for length scales such as the fracto-cohesive length and RVE size. If the identified issues are corrected, the framework could provide a practical analytical complement to simulations of architected materials. The present manuscript, however, contains a central statistical inconsistency in Eq. (8) that undermines the claimed validation of the failure-load distributions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (8), Section 2.3] Equation (8) double-counts every interior ligament. P_f(r_j,θ_j) in Eq. (7) is the probability that at least one of the six ligaments adjoining node j fails, i.e., a product over those six incident ligaments. Multiplying [1 - P_f] over all nodes j gives a product over every incident edge, so each interior ligament (shared by two nodes) contributes (1-p_ℓ)^2. The correct survival probability for first ligament failure is a product over unique ligaments: ∏_ℓ (1-p_ℓ). Thus Eq. (8) predicts a CDF that is shifted to lower loads; for Weibull modulus m the load shift is approximately 2^(1/m), about 15% for m=5. The FE validation in Section 3 draws one random number per unique ligament, so it tests the correct product, not Eq. (8). The text's statement that 'we treat the failure of the ligaments around any node as distinct from one another' is precisely the erroneous assumption, and the claim of
  2. [Eqs. (9)-(10), Section 4.2] Equation (10) is missing a factor of 2. Substituting W_f = σ_f*^2/(2E) and G_c = K_IC^2/E into Eq. (9) yields λ = 2 (K_IC/σ_f*)^2, not (K_IC/σ_f*)^2 as written. The factor of 2 affects the absolute values of the fracto-cohesive length shown in Fig. 4(b). Section 4.3 later introduces a different definition, λ0 = (1/2π)(K_IC/σ_f)^2, and the relationship between these quantities is not reconciled. Please correct the expression and clarify which definition is used for the reported predictions.
  3. [Section 5.1, Eq. (15)] The steady-state toughness extension is a heuristic scaling, not a derived result. Equation (15) assumes G_c ∝ ρ_e Ω, and the process-zone volume Ω is taken from the damage-initiation threshold (Eq. (7)) rather than from a steady-state crack-growth simulation that includes stress redistribution. No FE or experimental validation of the toughness prediction is provided. Since the abstract and conclusions make claims about toughness enhancement by disorder and stochasticity, this is a load-bearing part of the manuscript. The authors should either provide validation (e.g., crack-growth simulations) or explicitly reframe Eq. (15) and the toughness conclusions as conjectures that require further testing.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1] The assumption that the lattice feature size is much smaller than the process zone is stated but not quantified. Figure 5 shows the K-field deviates within one unit cell of the crack tip; a brief discussion of the practical limits of Eq. (3) would help readers assess the model's range of validity.
  2. [Section 3] The FE failure procedure could be described more explicitly: for each ligament, draw a uniform random number u and fail the ligament if u ≤ P_f(σ); the first-failure load is then the minimum load at which any ligament fails. The phrase 'compared to a set of randomly selected real numbers' is somewhat ambiguous.
  3. [Fig. 4(a)] The legend includes 'Fitted Model' but the fitting procedure is not described until the following paragraph. Consider moving the fitting description before or into the caption.
  4. [Section 4.3, Eq. (12)] The text switches from plane stress (Section 3) to plane strain in the RVE energy-density calculation. Please clarify whether Eq. (12) is intended for plane strain and why, and define E* and ν* more precisely.
  5. [General] There are minor typographical issues, e.g., 'e ffect' for 'effect' and the notation 'ψc' in the fracto-cohesive length definition. A careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central failure-load derivation is self-contained, with minor self-citation in the toughness extension and a non-circular double-counting caveat in Eq. (8).

full rationale

The derivation chain is Eq. (5) (local Weibull input), Eq. (7) (six-orientation node failure probability), Eq. (8) (weakest-link product over nodes), whose discrete derivative gives the failure-load PDF. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: m, b, and σ_o are stated inputs, and the FE simulations use the same local Weibull survival function, so the agreement in Fig. 4(a) validates the analytic stress/geometry/weakest-link integration rather than independently validating the Weibull law. That is a scope limitation, not a circular reduction. The RVE stress comparison in Sec. 4.3 (Fig. 5) is an independent check of the K-field ligament-stress formula (Eq. (3)) without using the failure model. The toughness extension in Sec. 5.1 invokes Gc ∝ ρ_e Ω from the authors' prior work [13,14]; this is a self-citation and is load-bearing for that extension, but those prior results are peer-reviewed and externally falsifiable, and the paper adds its own process-zone calculation, so it does not make the central derivation circular. The paper itself also restricts Eq. (8) to damage initiation (Sec. 2.3), an explicit limitation that we weigh. A separate correctness concern: Eq. (8) as written multiplies node-level survival probabilities, and since each P_f already contains the six shared ligaments, interior ligaments are counted twice; this would affect the literal Eq. (8) prediction and the reported FE agreement, but it is a mathematical error/ambiguity rather than the input–output equivalence that defines circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central model rests on chosen inputs: Weibull parameters m and sigma_0, disorder concentration b, threshold T, and geometry factor Y. The von Mises angle distribution is ad hoc to the paper, and no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Weibull modulus m = 5 and 20 (FE cases)
    Chosen to represent stochastic and pseudo-deterministic material behavior; all central results depend on it.
  • Reference stress sigma_0 = 20 MPa
    Chosen for FE simulations; all failure probabilities scale with it.
  • Disorder concentration b = 10
    Chosen for disordered FE lattices; controls angular variance of ligaments.
  • Failure threshold T = 0.9
    Arbitrary threshold used to define RVE length and damage zones; the authors note the choice is arbitrary.
  • Crack geometry factor Y = approx 1
    Used in K_IC = Y sigma sqrt(pi a); not verified for the lattice geometries.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Lattice is stretch-dominated; only the axial stress component of each ligament contributes to failure (Eq. 1).
    Invoked in Section 2.1; if bending or shear at nodes carries significant load, Eq. (1) and subsequent predictions break down.
  • domain assumption The homogeneous continuum K-field (Eq. 2) applies at the lattice scale when lattice size is much smaller than the process zone.
    Used throughout Section 2.1 for ligament stress calculations; FE verification shows deviation within one unit cell of the crack tip.
  • domain assumption Failure of each ligament is governed by the Weibull CDF with identical parameters m and sigma_0, and ligament volume is approximately the reference volume.
    Section 2.2, Eqs. (4)-(5); the V approx V_0 simplification is admitted, and no experimental fitting of Weibull parameters is performed.
  • ad hoc to paper Ligament angles in a disordered triangular lattice follow a pi-periodic von Mises distribution with concentration b (Eq. 6).
    Section 2.3 presents this as an example distribution, not derived from a specific node-perturbation process; the FE disorder is generated by radial perturbation with b=10.
  • domain assumption Ligament failures are statistically independent, so node and specimen survival probabilities are products (Eqs. 7-8).
    Section 2.3; independence is asserted, not proven, and the paper limits rigorous application to first ligament failure.
  • domain assumption Relative toughness scales as Gc/Go = (E_sigma2 / sigma_0^2)(Omega/Omega_0), based on Gc proportional to rho_e Omega (Eq. 15).
    Section 5.1; this scaling is taken from refs [13,14] and applied to stochastic disordered lattices without direct verification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fracture of disordered and stochastic lattice materials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SXOZ2IJV

@misc{pith2026250821187,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fracture of disordered and stochastic lattice materials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SXOZ2IJV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21187}
}
read the original abstract

The failure of mechanical metamaterials is a function of the interplay between the properties of the base material and the microstructural geometry. Stochastic failure properties of the base material and disordered microstructural geometries can contribute to variations in the global failure mechanics that are not captured in traditional analyses of ordered, deterministic architected materials. We present a probabilistic framework that couples stochastic material failure and geometric disorder to predict failure in lattice mechanical metamaterials. These predictions are verified through finite element analysis, which confirm that disorder and stochasticity affect both the mean and variance of the damage initiation load in a lattice, with average failure loads being generally reduced and variance increasing with higher levels of disorder and stochasticity. The fracto-cohesive length and representative volume element size are also predicted and constrain the minimum defect and lattice sizes, respectively, for failure to be considered a fracture process. The framework is extended to consider the fracture behavior of the lattice, the development of damage zones, and their impact on the steady-state fracture toughness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21187 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Fracture specimen with crack length a, applied far-field stress, σ, and polar coordinates r and θ indicated. (b) Ordered triangular lattice corresponding to outlined region. Ligaments have length L, thickness, t, and are oriented at angles, ϕ. (c) Disordered triangular lattice 2.2. Effect of Material Stochasticity The above analysis is rigorous for an idealized elastic-brittle material; however, many real brittl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Probability of failure given by Weibull distribution for varying Weibull moduli, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Representative finite element model geometry, consisting of a 30x30 unit cell triangular lattice with a precrack under displacement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Probability distribution of ligament failures in a lattice as a function of the applied load. Histogram results given for finite element [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: a) Average difference in ligament axial stresses between the analytic model (σanl) and the finite element model (σFE) as a function of the radial distance from the crack tip for four lattice sizes, N = 12, 18, 24, and 30, shown in (b-e), respectively. 5. Results: Tough…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Damage zone for a homogeneous plane-stress material and an elastic-brittle ordered triangular lattice. (b) Damage zones corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. How Geometry Tames Disorder in Lattice Fracture

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2026-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The Slenderness Ratio of a triangular beam lattice controls how much Weibull-distributed strut strength disorder affects crack path and toughness, yielding three failure regimes.

  2. One-Shot Generative Design for Disordered Metamaterials via Self-Organizing Neural Cellular Automata

    cs.CE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A neural cellular automaton trained on a single disordered-material template learns local growth rules that can be steered to generate controllable, spatially graded microstructures and a multiscale mechanical cloak.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Tertuliano, J

    O. Tertuliano, J. Greer, The nanocomposite nature of bone drives its strength and damage resistance, Nature Materials 15 (2016) 1195–1203

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Q. Yang, B. Cox, R. Nalla, R. Ritchie, Fracture length scales in human cortical bone: The necessity of nonlinear fracture models, Biomaterials 27 (9) (2006) 2095–2113

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Garyfallogiannis, R

    K. Garyfallogiannis, R. Ramanujam, R. Litvinov, T. Yu, C. Nagaswami, J. Bassani, J. Weisel, P. Purohit, V . Tutwiler, Fracture toughness of fibrin gels as a function of protein volume fraction: Mechanical origins, Acta Biomaterialia 159 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Purohit, J

    P. Purohit, J. Bassani, Fluid e ffects on the fracture toughness of gels, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 200 (106125) (2025)

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Bazant, M

    Z. Bazant, M. Kazemi, Determination of fracture energy, process zone length and brittleness number from size effect, with application to rock and concrete, International Journal of Fracture 44 (1990) 111–131

    work page 1990

  6. [6]

    Bazant, M

    Z. Bazant, M. Tabbara, K. M.T., G. Pijaudier-Cabot, Random particle model for fracture of aggregate or fiber composites, Journal of Engi- neering Mechanics 116 (8) (1990) 1686–1705

    work page 1990

  7. [7]

    Hossain, C.-J

    M. Hossain, C.-J. Hsueh, B. Bourdin, K. Bhattacharya, E ffective toughness of heterogeneous media, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 71 (2014) 15–32

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Hsueh, L

    C.-J. Hsueh, L. Avellar, B. Bourdin, G. Ravichandran, K. Bhattacharya, Stress fluctuation, crack renucleation and toughening in layered materials, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 120 (2018) 68–78

    work page 2018

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Heide-Jorgensen, M

    S. Heide-Jorgensen, M. Budzik, Crack growth along heterogeneous interface during the dcb experiment, International Journal of Solids and Structures 120 (2017) 278–291

    2017

  2. [10]

    Mateos, W

    A. Mateos, W. Huang, Y .-W. Zhang, J. Greer, Discrete-continuum duality of architected materials: Failure, flaws, and fracture, Advanced Functional Materials 29 (1806772) (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Y . Cui, Y . Gao, H. Chew, Two-scale porosity effects on cohesive crack growth in a ductile media, International Journal of Solids and Structures 200-201 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Muro-Barrios, Y

    R. Muro-Barrios, Y . Cui, J. Lambros, H. Chew, Dual-scale porosity e ffects on crack growth in additvely manufactured metals: 3d ductile fracture models, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 159 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Fulco, M

    S. Fulco, M. Budzik, E. Bain, K. Turner, Decoupling toughness and strength through architected plasticity, Extreme Mechanics Letters 57 (101912) (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Fulco, M

    S. Fulco, M. Budzik, K. Turner, Enhancing toughness through geometric control of the process zone, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 184 (105548) (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    S. Luan, E. Chen, S. Gaitanaros, Energy-based fracture mechanics of brittle lattice materials, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 169 (105093) (2022). 12

    2022

  8. [16]

    O’Masta, L

    M. O’Masta, L. Dong, L. St-Pierre, H. Wadley, V . Deshpande, The fracture toughness of octet-truss lattices, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 98 (2017) 271–289

    2017

  9. [17]

    Shaikeea, H

    A. Shaikeea, H. Cui, M. O’Masta, X. Zheng, V . Deshpande, The toughness of mechanical metamaterials, Nature Materials 21 (2022) 297–304

    2022

  10. [18]

    Zhang, X

    L. Zhang, X. Mao, Fracturing of topological maxwell lattices, New Journal of Physics 20 (0603034) (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Athanasiadis, M

    A. Athanasiadis, M. Dias, M. Budzik, Can confined mechanical metamaterials replace adhesives?, Extreme Mechanics Letters 48 (101411) (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Hedvard, M

    M. Hedvard, M. Dias, M. Budzik, Toughening mechanisms and damage propagation in architected-interfaces, International Journal of Solids and Structures 288 (112600) (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Heide-Jorgensen, M

    S. Heide-Jorgensen, M. Budzik, K. Turner, Mechanics and fracture of structured pillar interfaces, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 137 (103825) (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Fulco, M

    S. Fulco, M. Budzik, H. Xiao, D. Durian, K. Turner, Disorder enhances the fracture toughness of 2d mechanical metamaterials, PNAS Nexus 4 (pgaf023) (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Driscoll, B

    M. Driscoll, B. Chen, T. Beuman, S. Ulrich, S. Nagel, V . Vitelli, The role of rigidity in controlling material failure, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 113 (39) (2016) 10813–10817

    2016

  16. [24]

    Bertheir, M

    E. Bertheir, M. Porter, K. Daniels, Forecasting failure locations in 2-dimensional disordered lattices, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (34) (2019) 16742–16749

    2019

  17. [25]

    Karapiperis, D

    K. Karapiperis, D. Kochmann, Prediction and control of fracture paths in disordered architected materials using graph neural networks, Communications Engineering 2 (32) (2023) 1–9

    2023

  18. [26]

    Weibull, A statistical distribution function of wide applicability, Journal of Applied Mechanics 18 (1951) 293–297

    W. Weibull, A statistical distribution function of wide applicability, Journal of Applied Mechanics 18 (1951) 293–297

    1951

  19. [27]

    Ziemke, F

    P. Ziemke, F. O., R. Chambers, R. Thiraux, L. Valdevit, M. Begley, The defect sensitivity of brittle truss-based metamaterials, Materials & Design 239 (112776) (2024) 1–20

    2024

  20. [28]

    Lavoie, Z

    S. Lavoie, Z. Suo, Flaw sensitivity of stochastic elastic materials, Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids 29 (6) (2024) 1228–1238

    2024

  21. [29]

    Irwin, Analysis of stresses and strains near the end of a crack traversing a plate, Journal of Applied Mechanics 24 (3) (1957) 361–364

    G. Irwin, Analysis of stresses and strains near the end of a crack traversing a plate, Journal of Applied Mechanics 24 (3) (1957) 361–364

    1957

  22. [30]

    C. Chen, W. Z., S. Z., Flaw sensitivity of highly stretchable materials, Extreme Mechanics Letters 10 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Fleck, V

    N. Fleck, V . Deshpande, M. Ashby, Micro-architectured materials: past, present and future, Proceedings of The Royal Society: A 466 (2010) 2495–2516

    2010

  24. [32]

    Westergaard, Bearing pressures and cracks, Journal of Applied Mechanics 5 (1939) A49–A53

    H. Westergaard, Bearing pressures and cracks, Journal of Applied Mechanics 5 (1939) A49–A53

    1939

  25. [33]

    Meyers, K

    M. Meyers, K. Chawla, Mechanical Behavior of Materials, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2009

    2009

  26. [34]

    Fisher, T

    N. Fisher, T. Lewis, B. Embleton, Statistical Analysis of Spherical Data, Cambridge University Press, 1987. 13

    1987

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.