3D printed geometrically tessellated sheets with origami-inspired patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study demonstrates that the impact energy absorption capabilities of flexible sheets can be significantly enhanced by implementing tessellated designs into their structure. Configurations of three tessellated geometries were tested; they included a triangular-based, a rectangular-based, and a novel square-based pattern. Due to their geometrical complexity, multiple configurations of these tessellations were printed from a rubber-like material using an inkjet printer with two different thicknesses (2 and 4 mm), and their ability to absorb impact energy was compared to an unpatterned inkjet-printed sheet. In addition, the effect of multi-sheets stacking was also tested. Due to the tailored structure, the impact testing showed that the single-layer sheets were more effective at absorbing impact loads, and experience less deformation, than their two-layer counterparts. The 4 mm thick tessellated patterns were most effective at absorbing impact loads; all three thick patterns measured about 40% lower impact forces transferred to the base of the samples compared to the unpatterned counterparts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".