A Mixed Discrete Cosserat Rod Formulation

Jonas Breuling; Marco Herrmann; Remco I. Leine; Simon R. Eugster; Tianxiang Dai

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 24 references

A Mixed Discrete Cosserat Rod Formulation

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A chain of rigid bodies with compliant links is proven to be exactly a degree-one mixed Petrov–Galerkin Cosserat rod finite element, provided internal work is integrated at element midpoints and external and inertial work at nodes by the tr

desk verdict The bridging idea is genuinely useful, but Eq. (10) has a reciprocal element-length error that breaks the paper's central equivalence claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21164 v1 pith:3MXK7K3N submitted 2026-07-23 math.NA cs.NAmath-phmath.MP

Tianxiang Dai , Marco Herrmann , Jonas Breuling , Remco I. Leine , Simon R. Eugster This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NAcs.NAmath-phmath.MP MSC 65M6074K1074S05

keywords CosseratroddiscretemodelmixedfiniteelementPetrov–GalerkinHellinger–Reissnerlocking-freemultibodydynamicsdifferential-algebraicequations

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 claims that a discrete Cosserat rod model — a chain of rigid nodes coupled by compliant forces and moments — is not a heuristic construction but exactly a degree-one mixed Petrov–Galerkin Cosserat rod finite element, provided the internal virtual work is integrated by the midpoint rule and the external and inertial virtual work by the trapezoidal rule. The chain model's strain measures come from the relative kinematics of adjacent node pairs, and the constitutive law is written in compliance form with independent stress unknowns. The significance is twofold: the model inherits the locking-free robustness of the underlying mixed FEM, and it exposes the two-node banded coupling of computer-graphics discrete rods rather than the dense coupling of strain-parameterized reduced-order models. The paper verifies this claim with static helix and tendon-driven examples plus a dynamic Wilberforce pendulum.

What carries the argument

The engine is the mixed Petrov–Galerkin variational principle in Hellinger–Reissner form: internal force and moment resultants are independent stress degrees of freedom, conjugate to compliance-weighted strain measures. Linear interpolation of the kinematics, combined with the midpoint rule for internal quadrature, yields the discrete strain definitions and the two-node coupling blocks; the trapezoidal rule yields the diagonal lumped inertia. The whole argument rests on the identity between midpoint-evaluated linear interpolation and the relative kinematics of adjacent node pairs.

What would settle it

Discretize a clamped, nearly inextensible rod with the chain model and with the companion mixed FEM using exact quadrature at the same mesh; if the two converge to different equilibrium shapes, or if the chain model locks (e.g., shear oscillations) while the exact-quadrature FEM does not, the claimed equivalence fails. A cheaper check: replace the midpoint rule in the internal virtual work with exact integration and observe whether the discrete strain definitions still coincide with equation (7).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an exact equivalence between two apparently different objects: a rigid-body-chain Cosserat rod and a mixed finite element at linear kinematic interpolation order. Starting from the internal virtual work of a companion mixed Petrov–Galerkin formulation and evaluating it at element midpoints reproduces the discrete strains and the banded force-direction Jacobian; applying the trapezoidal rule to external and inertial virtual work produces the lumped nodal masses, inertias, and loads. The discrete rod is therefore the p=1 mixed FEM with specific low-order quadrature, and its equations of motion form a differential-algebraic system whose algebraic part is just the compli

Load-bearing premise

The derivation inherits every equation from a companion unpublished mixed FEM, so if that formulation's stress interpolation or virtual-work sign conventions are wrong the discrete model inherits the error; separately, the dynamic DAE is assumed index-1 for all configurations without proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The rigid-body-chain model is a rigorously derived FEM discretization, so its convergence theory and locking-free behavior can be inherited from the mixed method rather than argued heuristically.
Because coupling is only between adjacent nodes, the mass matrix is constant and diagonal and the force Jacobian is banded, making local and parallel (GPU-style) relaxation solvers a natural next step.
The compliance-split DAE form keeps the nonlinearity in the algebraic constraint, which the paper argues is more robust and efficient than condensing it into the kinetic equations.
The formulation handles variable cross sections and stiffness discontinuities without special treatment, as demonstrated by the two-helix and tendon-driven examples.
The Wilberforce pendulum example shows the model reproduces coupled longitudinal–torsional energy exchange with a near π/2 phase shift.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: If the equivalence holds generally, error analyses and locking studies for the underlying mixed FEM transfer directly to graphics-style discrete rod solvers, potentially giving rigorous accuracy guarantees to algorithms developed for visual simulation.
Inference: The specific quadrature choices are likely what make the discrete strains objective and the coupling local; testing alternative quadrature rules in the same variational setting would generate a family of discrete rods with different accuracy and locking trade-offs.
Inference: A natural testable extension is to use the banded structure with local relaxation for frictional contact between multiple rods, a direction the paper names as future work.
Inference: The equivalence suggests that the compliance-form of the discrete rod is not an approximation but the mixed method's natural structure, so hybrid rigid–soft robot models built from such chains can rely on standard saddle-point solvers.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Frankly, the paper's central claim does not survive its own equations. In Eq. (10), K_c,i is defined as L_i diag(EA, GA, GA, GJ, EI, EI). Substituting into Eq. (9) gives an internal force n = L_i^2 EA (gamma - gamma_0), so stiffness scales with element length squared. Section 4's quadrature reduction of the mixed FEM requires exactly the reciprocal: K_c = (1/L_i) diag(...) and l_i = L_i (gamma - gamma_0), so that K_c^{-1} lambda - l matches L_i [K_gamma^{-1} n - (gamma - gamma_0)]. As printed, the constitutive law is dimensionally inconsistent and the claimed equivalence to the mixed FEM is false. A reader implementing Eqs. (9)-(11) would see the rod soften without bound as the mesh is refined, contradicting the convergence reported in the helix example. This is not a subtle sign error; it breaks the paper's main selling point. Now the credit. The idea of presenting a two-node discrete Cosserat rod as the midpoint/trapezoidal quadrature reduction of a p=1 mixed Petrov-Galerkin FEM is genuinely worth having. The banded force Jacobian in (20) is clean, and the derivation in Section 4 would be elegant once the reciprocal is fixed. The numerical examples are well chosen: variable cross-section helix, tendon-driven tapered rod, and the Wilberforce pendulum. The helix and tendon results show the expected trends. The weaker parts beyond the scaling error: the 'absence of locking' is inherited from ref. [15], an unpublished same-group preprint, and no baseline comparison is given. In the Wilberforce example, the bob's moment of inertia is 'appropriately tuned' to get the pi/2 phase shift, but the value is not reported, so the reader cannot reproduce the tuning. These are addressable, but as they stand they leave the strongest dynamic claim unsupported. So: the paper deserves a serious referee because the core idea is valuable and the error looks fixable, but it should not be accepted as is. I would send it back for major revision with the scaling correction, a demonstration of locking-free behavior against a non-mixed baseline, and a reported inertia for the pendulum. My verdict would be reject-and-resubmit rather than accept.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a discrete Cosserat rod model representing the rod as a chain of rigid nodes coupled by compliant elements with independent stress degrees of freedom. The central claim is that this discrete model arises rigorously from a mixed Petrov–Galerkin Cosserat rod FEM at linear kinematic interpolation order when internal virtual work is integrated by the midpoint rule and external/inertial contributions by the trapezoidal rule. Section 4 derives the discrete equilibrium and dynamic equations from the mixed FEM virtual work, and three numerical examples (two-segment helix, tendon-driven manipulator, Wilberforce pendulum) are used to demonstrate accuracy, mesh convergence, and physical behavior.

Significance. If the derivation is correct, the paper provides a valuable bridge between mixed FEM and discrete rod models: it yields a banded, two-node coupling structure that is convenient for GPU-based implementations, preserves compliance-based constitutive laws, and may inherit locking-free behavior from the underlying mixed formulation. The paper also ships reproducible code and reports clean second-order convergence against an analytical helix solution. These strengths make the result potentially important for soft robotics, computer graphics, and multibody dynamics. However, the central claim currently rests on two specific technical points that need correction or clarification: a scaling error in the element constitutive law and an incomplete treatment of the virtual-rotation interpolation.

major comments (2)

[§3, Eq. (10) with §4, Eq. (33)] Equation (10) defines K_{c,i} = L_i^el diag(EA, GA, GA, GJ, EI, EI), while Eq. (11) defines l_i = L_i^el (γ_i−γ0_i, κ_i−κ0_i). Substituting into Eq. (9), K_{c,i}^{-1}λ_i − l_i = 0 gives λ_i = K_{c,i} l_i = (L_i^el)^2 diag(...)(γ_i−γ0_i). This is dimensionally inconsistent (n_i would have units N·m²) and makes the effective stiffness vanish as the mesh is refined. The §4 derivation, after the midpoint rule applied to Eq. (28), yields the compliance term L_i^el δn^T(K_γ^{-1}n − (γ−γ0)), which requires K_{c,i}^{-1} = L_i^el K_γ^{-1}, i.e., K_{c,i} = (1/L_i^el) diag(...). As printed, Eq. (10) is a reciprocal L_el error that breaks the claimed equivalence to the mixed FEM and contradicts the observed convergence. The authors must correct Eq. (10) and verify that the accompanying code uses the corrected expression.
[§4, Eq. (30) and Eq. (20)] The derivation linearly interpolates the virtual rotations as δϕ_lin(s_el) = (δϕ_{i−1}+δϕ_i)/2, but δϕ_i is defined as the virtual rotation in the nodal frame B_i, while the stress and strain quantities in Eq. (28) are in the element frame. For finite inter-element rotations, these are different frames, and a coordinate-wise average of body-frame virtual rotations is not frame-invariant. The resulting force Jacobian W_c in Eq. (20) contains no rotation matrices between the nodal and element frames for the moment blocks (bottom rows). The authors should either specify a consistent frame for the virtual-rotation interpolation (e.g., inertial or element frame) and show the corresponding transformations in Eq. (33), or restrict the rigor claim to small inter-element rotation increments. Without this clarification, the derivation from the mixed FEM is incomplete.

minor comments (4)

[§5, first example] The text states that the second target helix has height h/2, but the parameterization in Eq. (42) gives a vertical rise of c·β(L) = h for the second segment. Either the text or the parameterization should be corrected; the numerical results themselves are still well-defined.
[§3, after Eq. (21)] The statement that Eqs. (12)–(14) constitute an index-1 DAE is asserted without proof. A brief justification (e.g., invertibility of K_c and differentiability of l_c(q)) would be helpful, since the dynamic solver selection depends on this property.
[§5, Fig. 2] Please state how the error ∥r(s)−r*(s)∥ is evaluated at non-nodal points (e.g., interpolation of the discrete centerline) and define the norm used, so the convergence results are fully reproducible.
[General] The derivation in §4 relies on the unpublished preprint [15] for the mixed FEM internal virtual work expression. The paper should explicitly note this dependence, since the rigor of the present derivation is conditional on the correctness of that formulation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No cyclic reduction: the discrete rod model is a direct quadrature reduction of the authors' own mixed FEM, with self-referential lineage but no fitted-input or definitional circularity.

full rationale

The central claim is an equivalence statement: the discrete chain-of-rigid-bodies model (Eqs. 9–14) is presented as the p=1 mixed Petrov–Galerkin Cosserat rod FEM of [15], with internal virtual work integrated by the midpoint rule and external/inertial terms by the trapezoidal rule. Section 4 implements this reduction explicitly: it starts from the continuum internal virtual work (28), substitutes the linear interpolations (26), midpoint evaluations (30)–(32), and endpoint/trapezoidal external and inertial terms (34)–(41), and obtains the discrete equilibrium equations (22)–(23) and the dynamic equations (12)–(14). No unknown parameter is fitted to force this outcome. The discrete strain measures in (7) are shown to coincide with the midpoint-evaluated continuum strains: Eq. (32) states that gamma_i^lin(s_el) and kappa_i^lin(s_el) 'coincide exactly with the discrete strain measures defined in (7).' That is the content of the derivation, not a circular prediction. The only load-bearing external input is the internal virtual work expression (28) and the inertial virtual work (39), taken from [15] and [14], respectively, both by overlapping authors. This is self-referential lineage and a reproducibility concern because [15] is an unpublished preprint, but it is not circular: the derivation does not assume the discrete equations, and it does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or otherwise smuggle the target conclusion through the citation. The helix and Wilberforce validation examples come from the same groups ([13], [15]), but they are demonstrations rather than inputs to the derivation. Separately, the printed Eq. (10) appears inconsistent with the K_c^{-1} required by Eq. (33), exhibiting a reciprocal L_el-scaling problem; this is an internal correctness/implementation issue, not a circularity, and it does not make the derivation cyclic in its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted in the central formulation: material/geometric inputs are problem data and the quadrature rules are methodological choices. The one notable fitted input is the unreported tuned Wilberforce bob inertia. The main axioms are the correctness of the underlying mixed FEM [15], the diagonal linear-elastic constitutive law, the index-1 DAE assumption, and the objectivity of the quaternion interpolation inherited from [14]. No new physical entities are introduced; the stress DOFs are existing resultant forces/moments expressed in compliance form.

free parameters (1)

Effective moment of inertia of the Wilberforce bob about the spring axis (screws/nuts setting) = not reported; only geometric base cylinder value is given, with the screw contribution described as 'appropriately tuned
Section 5 (Wilberforce pendulum): the simulation 'with the cylinder's moment of inertia appropriately tuned' adjusts the bob's rotational inertia to produce the near-perfect π/2 phase shift; the tuned value is not specified, so the headline dynamic agreement is partly fitted rather than independently predicted.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The mixed Petrov–Galerkin Cosserat rod FEM of Herrmann et al. [15] is valid, including its Hellinger–Reissner stress interpolation and locking-free property.
Section 4 starts from Eq. (28) as the internal virtual work of [15]; the paper does not re-derive or independently verify [15], and the central derivation collapses if [15] is flawed.
domain assumption The Cosserat rod constitutive law is linear elastic and diagonal (uncoupled) in the chosen segment basis (EA, GA, GJ, EI).
Eq. (10) uses a diagonal stiffness/compliance matrix; this is a modeling assumption for slender elastic rods, not derived here.
domain assumption The algebraic constraint (14) is index-1, so λ_c can be eliminated and the Radau DAE solver in [23,24] applies.
Section 3 states the equations of motion (12)-(14) form an index-1 DAE without proof; dynamic examples rely on this.
standard math dExp and its Moore-Penrose inverse satisfy dExp(p) dExp^+(p)=E, and quaternion normalization can be enforced by post-step projection.
Used in Eqs. (3)-(5) and (7), following [21].
domain assumption The linear interpolation (26) of quaternions and virtual rotations together with the mean-quaternion evaluation (30) gives an objective discretization of the Cosserat rod as established in [14].
The discrete strain measures in Eq. (7) rely on this objectivity; the paper cites [14] rather than proving objectivity.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Mixed Discrete Cosserat Rod Formulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3MXK7K3N

@misc{pith2026260721164,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Mixed Discrete Cosserat Rod Formulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3MXK7K3N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21164}
}

read the original abstract

In this communication we propose a discrete Cosserat rod formulation in which a slender elastic rod is represented as a chain of rigid bodies (nodes) coupled by compliant elastic forces and moments acting between adjacent node pairs. Discrete dilatation, shear, torsion and curvature strain measures are evaluated from the relative kinematics of each node pair, while the constitutive behavior is expressed in compliance form through independent stress degrees of freedom. We show that the resulting model arises rigorously from a mixed Petrov--Galerkin Cosserat rod finite element formulation (FEM) at linear kinematic interpolation order when the internal virtual work is integrated by the midpoint rule and the external and inertial contributions by the trapezoidal rule. The proposed formulation inherits the robustness and the absence of locking from the underlying mixed FEM while simultaneously exposing a two-node coupling structure that mirrors discrete rod models from the computer graphics community. This is in sharp contrast to the dense coupling of strain-parameterized reduced-order models often used in soft robotic applications. Three numerical examples involving piecewise-varying cross sections, tendon-driven actuation under different spatial discretizations, and coupled longitudinal-torsional dynamics confirm the accuracy, robustness, and convergence behavior of the presented approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21164 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Discrete Cosserat rod kinematics. The rod is discretized into n segments by n + 1 separating cross sections (nodes) at centerline points {C0, . . . , Cn}. Each node i is parameterized by the rod centerline position ri and has a node-fixed basis {e Bi x , e Bi y , e Bi z }. The inset highlights two adjacent nodes at Ci−1 and Ci forming element i. Copyright line will be provided by the publisher [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Helix with two different cross-sectional areas. Left: deformed configuration of the rod consisting of two segments with crosssectional radii r1 and r2 = r1/2 1/4 . The reduced bending stiffness of the second segment leads to a higher curvature than in the first segment. Right: convergence of the centerline position error ∥r(s) − r ∗ (s)∥ at the segment junction s = L1 and at the free end s = L as a function of the … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Tendon-driven continuum manipulator at full actuation λt = 4 N. Top-left: deformed configuration of the tapered rod (rtip/r0 = 0.4) actuated by a single lateral tendon (green), producing a large spiral deformation. Top-right: bending curvature κ B z along the rod centerline. Bottom-left and bottom-right: axial strain γ B x and shear strain γ B y , respectively. Results are shown for four spatial discretizations (n =… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Wilberforce pendulum example. Left: deformed configuration of the helical spring with the attached cylindrical bob. Right: time history of the vertical displacement z(t) of the bob center of mass (top) and the rotation angle α(t) about the spring axis (bottom) over T =…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[15]

Herrmann, D

M. Herrmann, D. Castello, J. Breuling, I. C. Garcia, L. Greco, and S. R. Eugster, A mixed Petrov–Galerkin Cosserat rod finite element formulation, 2025

2025
[1]

Bergou, M

M. Bergou, M. Wardetzky, S. Robinson, B. Audoly, and E. Grinspun, Discrete elastic rods, in: ACM SIGGRAPH 2008 Papers, , SIGGRAPH ’08 (ACM, 2008), pp. 1–12

2008
[2]

Kugelstadt and E

T. Kugelstadt and E. Schömer, Position and orientation based Cosserat rods, ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Com- puter Animation (2016)

2016
[3]

Gazzola, L

M. Gazzola, L. H. Dudte, A. G. McCormick, and L. Mahadevan, Forward and inverse problems in the mechanics of soft filaments, Royal Society Open Science5(6), 171628 (2018)

2018
[4]

J. Hsu, T. Wang, K. Wu, and C. Yuksel, Stable Cosserat rods, in: Proceedings of the Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques Conference Conference Papers, (ACM, 2025), pp. 1–10

2025
[5]

H. Lang, J. Linn, and M. Arnold, Multi-body dynamics simulation of geometrically exact Cosserat rods, Multibody System Dynamics 25(3), 285–312 (2010)

2010
[6]

P. Jung, S. Leyendecker, J. Linn, and M. Ortiz, A discrete mechanics approach to the Cosserat rod theory—Part 1: static equilibria, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering85(1), 31–60 (2010)

2010
[7]

D. C. Rucker, B. A. Jones, and R. J. Webster III, A geometrically exact model for externally loaded concentric-tube continuum robots, IEEE Transactions on Robotics26(5), 769–780 (2010)

2010

Show all 24 references

[8]

J. Till, V . Aloi, and C. Rucker, Real-time dynamics of soft and continuum robots based on Cosserat rod models, The International Journal of Robotics Research38(6), 723–746 (2019)

2019
[9]

Tummers, V

M. Tummers, V . Lebastard, F. Boyer, J. Troccaz, B. Rosa, and M. T. Chikhaoui, Cosserat rod modeling of continuum robots from Newtonian and Lagrangian perspectives, IEEE Transactions on Robotics39(3), 2360–2378 (2023)

2023
[10]

Renda, F

F. Renda, F. Boyer, J. Dias, and L. Seneviratne, Discrete Cosserat approach for multisection soft manipulator dynamics, IEEE Transactions on Robotics34(6), 1518–1533 (2018)

2018
[11]

Boyer, V

F. Boyer, V . Lebastard, F. Candelier, and F. Renda, Dynamics of continuum and soft robots: A strain parameterization based ap- proach, IEEE Transactions on Robotics37(3), 847–863 (2021)

2021
[12]

A. T. Mathew, I. B. Hmida, C. Armanini, F. Boyer, and F. Renda, Sorosim: A MATLAB toolbox for hybrid rigid–soft robots based on the geometric variable-strain approach, IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine30(3), 106–122 (2023)

2023
[13]

Harsch, G

J. Harsch, G. Capobianco, and S. R. Eugster, Dynamic simulation of the Wilberforce pendulum using constrained spatial nonlinear beam finite elements, PAMM21(1) (2021)

2021
[14]

Harsch, S

J. Harsch, S. Sailer, and S. R. Eugster, A total Lagrangian, objective and intrinsically locking-free Petrov–Galerkin SE(3) Cosserat rod finite element formulation, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering124(13), 2965–2994 (2023)

2023
[16]

Renda, C

F. Renda, C. Armanini, V . Lebastard, F. Candelier, and F. Boyer, A geometric variable-strain approach for static modeling of soft manipulators with tendon and fluidic actuation, IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters5(3), 4006–4013 (2020)

2020
[17]

A. T. Mathew, D. Feliu-Talegon, A. Y . Alkayas, F. Boyer, and F. Renda, Reduced order modeling of hybrid soft-rigid robots using global, local, and state-dependent strain parameterization, The International Journal of Robotics Research44(1), 129–154 (2024)

2024
[18]

A. T. Mathew, F. Boyer, V . Lebastard, and F. Renda, Analytical derivatives of strain-based dynamic model for hybrid soft-rigid robots, The International Journal of Robotics Research45(1), 128–158 (2025)

2025
[19]

Armanini, F

C. Armanini, F. Boyer, A. T. Mathew, C. Duriez, and F. Renda, Soft robots modeling: A structured overview, IEEE Transactions on Robotics39(3), 1728–1748 (2023)

2023
[20]

S. S. Antman, Nonlinear Problems of Elasticity (Springer-Verlag, 2005)

2005
[21]

Rucker, Integrating rotations using nonunit quaternions, IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters3(4), 2979–2986 (2018)

C. Rucker, Integrating rotations using nonunit quaternions, IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters3(4), 2979–2986 (2018)

2018
[22]

Numerical Examples for PAMM 2026, Version v1.0.0-pamm2026, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20630284

2026 doi
[23]

J. Breuling, Adaptive implicit Runge–Kutta methods for stabilized index-one differential algebraic equations in constrained flexible multibody systems, Proceedings in Applied Mathematics and Mechanics (2026)

2026
[24]

Copyright line will be provided by the publisher

SolveDAE: Solvers for differential algebraic equations (DAEs), https://github.com/SolveDAE/solve_dae.git, Accessed: 2026-05-01. Copyright line will be provided by the publisher

2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [15]

Herrmann, D

M. Herrmann, D. Castello, J. Breuling, I. C. Garcia, L. Greco, and S. R. Eugster, A mixed Petrov–Galerkin Cosserat rod finite element formulation, 2025

2025

[2] [1]

Bergou, M

M. Bergou, M. Wardetzky, S. Robinson, B. Audoly, and E. Grinspun, Discrete elastic rods, in: ACM SIGGRAPH 2008 Papers, , SIGGRAPH ’08 (ACM, 2008), pp. 1–12

2008

[3] [2]

Kugelstadt and E

T. Kugelstadt and E. Schömer, Position and orientation based Cosserat rods, ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Com- puter Animation (2016)

2016

[4] [3]

Gazzola, L

M. Gazzola, L. H. Dudte, A. G. McCormick, and L. Mahadevan, Forward and inverse problems in the mechanics of soft filaments, Royal Society Open Science5(6), 171628 (2018)

2018

[5] [4]

J. Hsu, T. Wang, K. Wu, and C. Yuksel, Stable Cosserat rods, in: Proceedings of the Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques Conference Conference Papers, (ACM, 2025), pp. 1–10

2025

[6] [5]

H. Lang, J. Linn, and M. Arnold, Multi-body dynamics simulation of geometrically exact Cosserat rods, Multibody System Dynamics 25(3), 285–312 (2010)

2010

[7] [6]

P. Jung, S. Leyendecker, J. Linn, and M. Ortiz, A discrete mechanics approach to the Cosserat rod theory—Part 1: static equilibria, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering85(1), 31–60 (2010)

2010

[8] [7]

D. C. Rucker, B. A. Jones, and R. J. Webster III, A geometrically exact model for externally loaded concentric-tube continuum robots, IEEE Transactions on Robotics26(5), 769–780 (2010)

2010