pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23658 · v1 · pith:WPKLT24Dnew · submitted 2026-06-22 · 💻 cs.RO

A Reduced Order Model for Emergent Mechanics in Woven Systems

Anvay A. Pradhan , Evgueni T. Filipov , Talia Y. Moore This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 08:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords reduced-order modelwoven structuresemergent mechanicscrimp interchangeweaver pulloutmechanical anisotropyarchitected materialsPoisson response
0
0 comments X

The pith

A reduced-order model with four stiffness elements captures emergent weave behaviors such as crimp-driven Poisson response and programmable anisotropy.

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

The paper develops a reduced-order model for woven materials by discretizing weavers into nodes linked by four stiffness elements that represent axial stretch, uncrimping, shear between weavers, and frictional sliding. Parameters for these elements are fit to three-point bending and shear tests with agreement under 5 percent for different widths and spacings. Eigenvalue analysis of the unit cell verifies that the elements produce the expected low-energy modes tied to weave geometry. The model then reproduces behaviors such as an emergent Poisson effect from crimp exchange, discrete force drops as weavers are pulled out, concentrated stresses during tearing in multiple patterns, and adjustable directional stiffness by varying weaver properties spatially. This approach offers a middle ground between overly simplified homogenized models and expensive full-resolution simulations.

Core claim

The validated model demonstrates capabilities beyond continuum approaches including the emergent Poisson's response arising from crimp interchange, stepwise force reduction during progressive weaver pullout, stress localization under three distinct tearing configurations, and programmable mechanical anisotropy through spatially graded weaver stiffness. Eigenvalue analysis confirms each of the four elements is necessary for a complete kinematic and mechanistic description of the unit cell.

What carries the argument

A network of nodes connected by four physically interpretable stiffness elements for axial deformation, in-plane uncrimping, inter-weaver shear, and frictional slip.

If this is right

  • The model predicts an emergent Poisson's ratio arising purely from crimp interchange in the weave geometry.
  • It shows stepwise reductions in force as individual weavers are progressively pulled out.
  • Stress localizes differently under three distinct tearing configurations.
  • Mechanical anisotropy can be programmed by spatially grading the stiffness of weavers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The physical interpretability of the four elements could support inverse design to achieve target macroscopic responses by optimizing local stiffness values.
  • Similar node-spring reductions might apply to other periodic systems such as textile composites or kirigami sheets under large deformation.
  • Extending the calibration to include dynamic or cyclic loading would test whether the same four elements suffice for time-dependent behaviors.

Load-bearing premise

That stiffness parameters calibrated solely on three-point bending and shear experiments will accurately predict pullout, tearing, and graded anisotropy behaviors without any further tuning.

What would settle it

An experiment measuring the force-displacement curve during weaver pullout in a woven sample and comparing it to the model's predicted stepwise force reductions; mismatch beyond 5 percent would falsify the generalization claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23658 by Anvay A. Pradhan, Evgueni T. Filipov, Talia Y. Moore.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A plain woven sheet is modeled as a tessellation of repeating over–under unit cells, each parameterized by a compact set of geometric variables. a) The over–under interlacing of two weavers, with the nodes used to define the unit cell marked. Each unit cell is initially defined by six nodes aligned with the weaver centerlines; connectivity to neighboring cells reduces the description to two independent nod… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The reduced-order model discretizes each unit cell into four stiffness elements that together capture the principal weave-specific mechanical behaviors: (1) a Cartesian connector capturing pseudo-frictional slip, (2) a bar element capturing axial stretch, (3) a three-node spring capturing weaver crimping, and (4) a four-node spring capturing inter-weaver shear. a) Kinematic definition of each element: refe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Eigenvalue analysis of the unit cell shows that its lowest-energy elastic modes correspond to recognizable weave-specific phenomena, supporting the necessity of the full element set. a) The four lowest-energy elastic modes of the constrained unit cell, ordered by increasing eigenvalue, with the undeformed configuration shown as a shadow. The modes correspond to shear, crimp interchange, 𝑦-slip, and 𝑥-slip;… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Physical test samples were designed using a normalized parametrization that varies weaver width and spacing independently and expresses both in units of a common characteristic width, enabling direct comparison with simulation predictions. a) A characteristic width 𝑤 is defined, and all sample dimensions are expressed as multiples of 𝑤, generalizing the sample set across scales and facilitating comparison … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Three empirical loading configurations were used to characterize the bending and shear response of the woven samples. Testing setups for a) three-point bending in the perpendicular orientation (load aligned with the weaver axes), b) three-point bending in the bias orientation (load at 45◦ to the weaver axes), and c) picture-frame shear testing. Insets in (a) and (b) indicate the sample orientation relative… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The parameter-calibration loop used to identify element stiffness values that best reproduce the empirical stiffness trends. Starting from an initial stiffness guess, the model is run and its output is fit to obtain the simulated trend. The root-mean-square (RMS) error between the empirical fit and the model fit is computed and used as the calibration metric. When this error exceeds a predefined threshold … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The distributed calibration reproduces the empirical three-point bending response across both loading orientations and both geometric sweeps to within the 1% calibration threshold. Results are shown for the perpendicular (left column) and bias (right column) orientations. In the stress–strain panels, solid curves are empirical measurements and dotted curves are the calibrated simulation. In the modulus pan… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The distributed calibration reproduces the empirical shear stiffness trends to within the 1% calibration threshold, demonstrating the framework’s ability to accommodate piecewise-linear models representing distinct mechanical regimes. Because the static model cannot reproduce a hysteresis loop, each measured loop is sectioned into four monotonic branches (𝐸̂ 𝑠,right, 𝐸̂ 𝑠,left, 𝐸̂ 𝑠,bottom, 𝐸̂ 𝑠,top), and … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cross-validation of the calibrated models shows that distributed calibration produces models that generalize poorly across loading scenarios, while lumped calibration yields consistent, moderate performance across all conditions. Each cell reports the 𝑅2 of a calibrated model: the 𝑦-axis indicates the case used for calibration and the 𝑥-axis the case against which the model was evaluated. The twelve cases … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Parametric scaling of individual element stiffnesses reveals the distinct and separable contributions of each element to the bending and shear response. Scaling analyses use the lumped calibration solution as the baseline, with all other element stiffnesses held constant. For shear, the right branch of the hysteresis loop is shown rather than the full loop: the model is single-valued and does not trace a … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The model captures the emergent Poisson response of a plain woven sheet under uniaxial loading through a transition from crimp-dominated to bar-dominated energy storage. a) Stored energy in each element type as a function of applied force. This is an energy–force decomposition, not a force–displacement curve; the curve shapes show how stored energy partitions between elements as force increases and should… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Loss of structural integrity as a weave unravels, evaluated as sets of independent static configurations. The model does not simulate frictional pullout directly, instead it predicts the reaction force (engagement force) required to hold a test weaver at a fixed reference displacement. a) Engagement force versus number of weavers freed, for 3×3 through 9 × 9 weaves under zero preload. The force falls in d… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The model resolves element-level stress concentrations under three tearing configurations, identifying likely damage-initiation sites in woven sheets. For each configuration, one edge of a sheet containing an initial crack is fully constrained while prescribed loads open the crack. Color indicates stress magnitude (MPa). Note that the stress scale differs between panels. a) Mode I center tear: equal and o… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Element-wise stiffness parameterization enables spatially graded woven structures with programmable, direction￾dependent anisotropy. a) A unidirectional stiffness gradient is applied along 𝑦 (stiff edges, compliant center) while stiffness along 𝑥 is uniform. The relative-stiffness gradient shown spans a factor of ten. b) Deformed configurations and element stress under 𝑥- and 𝑦-directed loading. Loading a… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Woven structures exhibit rich mechanical behaviors including anisotropic stiffness, shear-induced locking, and crimp interchange that emerge purely from the geometric arrangement of individual weavers rather than from constituent material properties. Existing models either homogenize these interactions or resolve them at prohibitive computational cost. We introduce a reduced-order model that bridges this gap by representing individual weaver interactions through a system of nodes and four physically interpretable stiffness elements capturing axial deformation, in-plane uncrimping, inter-weaver shear, and frictional slip. Eigenvalue analysis of the unit cell confirms that the lowest-energy deformation modes correspond directly to known weave-specific phenomena, and that each element is necessary for a complete kinematic and mechanistic description. Element stiffness parameters are calibrated against empirical three-point bending and shear data, achieving agreement within 5% across varied weaver widths and spacings. The validated model is then applied to demonstrate capabilities beyond the reach of continuum approaches including: the emergent Poisson's response arising from crimp interchange, stepwise force reduction during progressive weaver pullout, stress localization under three distinct tearing configurations, and programmable mechanical anisotropy through spatially graded weaver stiffness. The physical transparency and computational efficiency of the framework position it as a practical tool for the analysis and design of woven architected materials with programmable mechanical response.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a reduced-order model for woven structures that represents individual weaver interactions via nodes connected by four physically interpretable stiffness elements (axial deformation, in-plane uncrimping, inter-weaver shear, and frictional slip). Eigenvalue analysis of the unit cell is used to confirm that the lowest-energy modes align with known weave phenomena and that each element is necessary. Element stiffness parameters are calibrated to three-point bending and shear experiments, achieving agreement within 5% across varied weaver widths and spacings. The calibrated model is then applied to forward-simulate emergent behaviors including Poisson response from crimp interchange, stepwise force reduction during progressive pullout, stress localization under three tearing configurations, and programmable anisotropy via spatially graded weaver stiffness.

Significance. If the generalization from the calibration data holds, the framework supplies a computationally efficient and physically transparent alternative to both continuum homogenization and full-resolution discrete-element models for woven architected materials. The explicit linkage of element stiffnesses to kinematic modes via eigenvalue analysis and the emphasis on parameter interpretability are positive features that could support design of materials with programmable response.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the model is 'validated' on bending/shear data and then 'applied to demonstrate' the Poisson, pullout, tearing, and anisotropy behaviors does not specify whether these demonstrations include independent experimental comparisons or are purely numerical predictions from the same four fitted parameters; this distinction is load-bearing for the central generalization claim.
  2. [Calibration and demonstration sections] Calibration and demonstration sections: stiffness parameters are obtained solely from three-point bending and shear experiments; the subsequent predictions for crimp-interchange Poisson effect and progressive weaver pullout therefore rest on the assumption that the chosen four-element set captures the new kinematics without hidden parameter sensitivity or missing physics, yet no withheld experimental benchmarks for these cases are reported.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below, clarifying the nature of our demonstrations and the basis for our predictions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the model is 'validated' on bending/shear data and then 'applied to demonstrate' the Poisson, pullout, tearing, and anisotropy behaviors does not specify whether these demonstrations include independent experimental comparisons or are purely numerical predictions from the same four fitted parameters; this distinction is load-bearing for the central generalization claim.

    Authors: We agree that the distinction is important and should be stated explicitly. The demonstrations of Poisson response, progressive pullout, tearing, and anisotropy are forward numerical simulations performed with the four stiffness parameters calibrated exclusively from the three-point bending and shear experiments; no independent experimental data for these behaviors are reported. The generalization claim is grounded in the eigenvalue analysis of the unit cell, which shows that the four elements produce the lowest-energy modes corresponding to known weave kinematics. We will revise the abstract to replace 'applied to demonstrate' with 'used to numerically predict' (or equivalent wording) to remove any ambiguity. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Calibration and demonstration sections] Calibration and demonstration sections: stiffness parameters are obtained solely from three-point bending and shear experiments; the subsequent predictions for crimp-interchange Poisson effect and progressive weaver pullout therefore rest on the assumption that the chosen four-element set captures the new kinematics without hidden parameter sensitivity or missing physics, yet no withheld experimental benchmarks for these cases are reported.

    Authors: The four elements were deliberately chosen to encode the distinct kinematic contributions: axial and uncrimping for crimp interchange (hence Poisson), shear for inter-weaver sliding, and frictional slip for pullout. The eigenvalue analysis directly verifies that these modes are the dominant low-energy deformations and that each element is required; omitting any one eliminates the corresponding physical behavior. While we acknowledge that no withheld experimental benchmarks for Poisson or pullout are provided, the model achieves <5% error on the calibration data across multiple weaver widths and spacings, and the parameters retain direct physical meaning. This mechanistic construction, rather than additional fitting, is what supports extrapolation to the new loading cases. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: model construction, eigenvalue confirmation, and calibration are independent of demonstration cases

full rationale

The paper constructs a reduced-order model using four stiffness elements, confirms via eigenvalue analysis that modes match known phenomena, calibrates parameters solely on three-point bending and shear experiments (agreement <5%), and then runs forward simulations on pullout, tearing, Poisson, and anisotropy cases. These demonstrations are applications of the already-calibrated model rather than quantities that reduce to the calibration data by construction or via self-citation. No equations equate a claimed prediction to a fitted input, no uniqueness theorems are imported from prior author work, and no ansatz is smuggled via citation. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on introducing four new stiffness elements whose parameters are fitted to data and on the domain assumption that these elements suffice for all listed emergent behaviors.

free parameters (1)
  • four element stiffness parameters
    Calibrated against empirical three-point bending and shear data to achieve 5% agreement; values not reported in abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The four stiffness elements (axial deformation, in-plane uncrimping, inter-weaver shear, frictional slip) are necessary and sufficient for a complete kinematic and mechanistic description of weave interactions.
    Invoked when stating that eigenvalue analysis confirms each element is necessary.
invented entities (1)
  • four physically interpretable stiffness elements no independent evidence
    purpose: To represent individual weaver interactions in the reduced-order model
    New postulated mechanical elements introduced to bridge homogenized and high-fidelity models; no independent evidence outside calibration data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5765 in / 1511 out tokens · 28916 ms · 2026-06-26T08:01:44.435865+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Journal of Industrial Textiles 55, 15280837251346789

    Intelligent and electronic textile materials for adaptive apparel: Innovations, functional design, and future directions. Journal of Industrial Textiles 55, 15280837251346789. ASTM International, 2017a. Standard test method for in-plane shear properties of sandwich panels using a picture frame fixture. doi:10.1520/ D8067\_D8067M-17. ASTMInternational,2017...

    work page doi:10.1520/d0790-17

  2. [2]

    Advances in architectural geometry 2018 , 72–93

    Beyond the basket case: A principled approach to the modelling of kagome weave patterns for the fabrication of interlaced lattice structures using straight strips. Advances in architectural geometry 2018 , 72–93. Baek, C., Martin, A.G., Poincloux, S., Chen, T., Reis, P.M.,

    2018

  3. [3]

    Physical Review Letters 127, 104301

    Smooth triaxial weaving with naturally curved ribbons. Physical Review Letters 127, 104301. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.104301. Beatini,V.,Gatheeshgar,P.,Rajanayagam,H.,Poologanathan,K.,Suntharalingam,T.,Perera,D.,Kanthasamy,E.,Nagaratnam,B.,2022.Integration of origami and deployable concept in volumetric modular units. Scientific Reports 12, 19180. Buckn...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.104301 2022

  4. [4]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 25360–25369

    Roboticizing fabric by integrating functional fibers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 25360–25369. doi:10.1073/pnas.2006211117. Butz, S., Jung, P., Filippenko, L., Koshelets, V., Ustinov, A.,

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2006211117

  5. [5]

    Advanced Materials 36, 2404369

    Tailoring stress–strain curves of flexible snapping mechanical metamaterial for on-demand mechanical responses via data-driven inverse design. Advanced Materials 36, 2404369. Chen,M.,Shen,X.,Chen,Z.,Lo,J.H.Y.,Liu,Y.,Xu,X.,Wu,Y.,Xu,L.,2022. Realizingthemultifunctionalmetamaterialforfluidflowinaporous medium. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ...

    2022

  6. [6]

    Textile Research Journal 81, 932–944

    An overview on fabrication of three-dimensional woven textile preforms for composites. Textile Research Journal 81, 932–944. doi:10.1177/0040517510392471. Cheng, X., Shen, D., Zheng, K., Wu, Z., Shi, L., Hu, X.,

    work page doi:10.1177/0040517510392471

  7. [7]

    Loper, N

    Yarn-level simulation of woven cloth. ACM Transactions on Graphics 33, 1–11. doi:10.1145/2661229.2661279. Coulais, C., Kettenis, C., van Hecke, M.,

    work page doi:10.1145/2661229.2661279

  8. [8]

    International Journal of Material Forming 3, 1241–1251

    Simulation of the mechanical behaviour of woven fabrics at the scale of fibers. International Journal of Material Forming 3, 1241–1251. doi:10.1007/s12289-009-0674-7. Fan, C., Gao, Y., Huang, J.,

    work page doi:10.1007/s12289-009-0674-7

  9. [9]

    Programmablesurfacedimplingoftextilemetamaterialsforaerodynamic control

    Farrell,D.T.,McCann,C.M.,Forte,A.E.,Walsh,C.J.,Bertoldi,K.,2025. Programmablesurfacedimplingoftextilemetamaterialsforaerodynamic control. Advanced Materials 37, 2505817. Filipov, E.T., Liu, K., Tachi, T., Schenk, M., Paulino, G.H.,

    2025

  10. [10]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 23960–23965

    Metamaterials with engineered failure load and stiffness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 23960–23965. Iwata,A.,Inoue,T.,Naouar,N.,Boisse,P.,Lomov,S.V.,2019. Coupledmeso-macrosimulationofwovenfabriclocaldeformationduringdraping. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing 118, 267–280. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.01.004. J...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.01.004 2019

  11. [11]

    Polymer Composites 35, 1583–1591

    Comparison of mechanical and ballistic performance of composite laminates produced from single-layer and double-layer interlocked woven structures. Polymer Composites 35, 1583–1591. doi:10.1002/pc.22811. Kang, G., Kim, Y.J., Lee, S.J., Kim, S.K., Lee, D.Y., Song, K.,

    work page doi:10.1002/pc.22811

  12. [12]

    Journal of the Textile Institute 83, 104–119

    Non-linear theory of the biaxial deformation of a triaxial-weave fabric. Journal of the Textile Institute 83, 104–119. doi:10.1080/00405009208631180. Kawabata, S., Niwa, M., Kawai, H., 1973a. 3—the finite-deformation theory of plain-weave fabrics Part I: The biaxial-deformation theory. The Journal of The Textile Institute 64, 21–46. doi:10.1080/0040500730...

    work page doi:10.1080/00405009208631180

  13. [13]

    International Journal of Solids and Structures 42, 3867–3896

    A continuum constitutive model for the mechanical behavior of woven fabrics. International Journal of Solids and Structures 42, 3867–3896. doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2004.10.030. Kuwazuru, O., Yoshikawa, N.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2004.10.030 2004

  14. [14]

    Advanced Materials 36, 2305254

    Data-driven design for metamaterials and multiscale systems: a review. Advanced Materials 36, 2305254. Liu,K.,Hacker,F.,Daraio,C.,2021. Roboticsurfaceswithreversible,spatiotemporalcontrolforshapemorphingandobjectmanipulation. Science Robotics 6, eabf5116. Liu, K., Paulino, G.H.,

    2021

  15. [15]

    Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 473, 20170348

    Nonlinear mechanics of non-rigid origami: an efficient computational approach. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 473, 20170348. doi:10.1098/rspa.2017.0348. McGuire, W., Gallagher, R.H., Ziemian, R.D.,

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.2017.0348 2017

  16. [16]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 11502–11507

    Resilient 3D hierarchical architected metamaterials. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 11502–11507. Misseroni,D.,Pratapa,P.P.,Liu,K.,Kresling,B.,Chen,Y.,Daraio,C.,Paulino,G.H.,2024. Origamiengineering. NatureReviewsMethodsPrimers 4,

    2024

  17. [17]

    Scientific Reports 6, 31067

    Shape morphing kirigami mechanical metamaterials. Scientific Reports 6, 31067. Parsons,E.M.,King,M.J.,Socrate,S.,2013. Modelingyarnslipinwovenfabricatthecontinuumlevel:Simulationsofballisticimpact. Journalof the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 61, 265–292. doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2012.05.005. Parsons, E.M., Weerasooriya, T., Sarva, S., Socrate, S.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2012.05.005 2013

  18. [18]

    Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 58, 1995–2021

    Impact of woven fabric: Experiments and mesostructure-based continuum-level simulations. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 58, 1995–2021. doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2010.05.006. Patil, H.Y., Filipov, E.T.,2026. Three-node torsional springelement formulation for the analysis ofreconfigurable bar-linked structures. Journal of Applied Mechanics 93, 0345...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2010.05.006 1995

  19. [19]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics 40, 1–15

    3D weaving with curved ribbons. ACM Transactions on Graphics 40, 1–15. doi:10.1145/3450626.3459788. Pradhan et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 36 of 37 Model for Woven Systems Sanchez, V., Walsh, C.J., Wood, R.J.,

    work page doi:10.1145/3450626.3459788

  20. [20]

    Schenk, M., Guest, S.D.,

    doi:10.1002/adfm.202008278. Schenk, M., Guest, S.D.,

    work page doi:10.1002/adfm.202008278

  21. [21]

    doi: 10.1016/j.cma

    A yarn-scale woven fabric model including significant slippage formulated within the arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian framework. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 420, 116741. doi:10.1016/j.cma. 2023.116741. Singal,K.,Dimitriyev,M.S.,Gonzalez,S.E.,Cachine,A.P.,Quinn,S.,Matsumoto,E.A.,2024. Programmingmechanicsinknittedmaterials,stitch by ...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma 2023

  22. [22]

    Physical Review Research 7, 033193

    Corner topology makes woven baskets into stiff, yet resilient metamaterials. Physical Review Research 7, 033193. Vangelatos,Z.,Gu,G.X.,Grigoropoulos,C.P.,2019. Architectedmetamaterialswithtailored3Dbucklingmechanismsatthemicroscale. Extreme Mechanics Letters 33, 100580. Voorwinden, M., Andersen, K., McQuillan, H.,

    2019

  23. [23]

    Multistable leno woven textiles, in: Companion of the 2025 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 534–538. Wang,L.,Boddapati,J.,Liu,K.,Zhu,P.,Daraio,C.,Chen,W.,2022. Mechanicalcloakviadata-drivenaperiodicmetamaterialdesign. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, e2122185119. Wang, Y., Li, L., Hofmann, D...

    2025

  24. [24]

    Nature 596, 238–243

    Structured fabrics with tunable mechanical properties. Nature 596, 238–243. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03698-7. Watts, C.M., Liu, X., Padilla, W.J.,

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03698-7

  25. [25]

    Nature 640, 931–940

    Modular chiral origami metamaterials. Nature 640, 931–940. Zhu,Y.,2025. Alumped-parametermodelforthemechanicsofinterlockedgeometries:Ribbons,origami,andwovenstructures. ComputerMethods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 446, 118283. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2025.118283. Zhu, Y., Filipov, E.T.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2025.118283 2025

  26. [26]

    International Journal of Mechanical Sciences , 106537doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2021.106537

    Rapid multi-physics simulation for electro-thermal origami systems. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences , 106537doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2021.106537. Zhu,Y.,Schenk,M.,Filipov,E.T.,2022. Areviewonorigamisimulations:Fromkinematics,tomechanics,towardmultiphysics. AppliedMechanics Reviews 74, 030801. doi:10.1115/1.4054552. Pradhan et al.:Preprint submi...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2021.106537 2021