Theoretical Puncture Mechanics of Soft Compressible Solids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accurate prediction of the force required to puncture a soft material is critical in many fields like medical technology, food processing, and manufacturing. However, such a prediction strongly depends on our understanding of the complex nonlinear behavior of the material subject to deep indentation and complex failure mechanisms. Only recently, we developed theories capable of correlating puncture force with material properties and needle geometry. However, such models are based on simplifications that seldom limit their applicability to real cases. One common assumption is the incompressibility of the cut material, albeit no material is truly incompressible. In this article, we propose a simple model that accounts for linearly elastic compressibility, and its interplay with toughness, stiffness, and elastic strain stiffening. Confirming previous theories and experiments, materials having high toughness and low modulus exhibit the highest dimensionless puncture resistance at a given needle radius. Surprisingly, in these conditions, we observe that incompressible materials exhibit the lowest puncture resistance, where volumetric compressibility can create an additional (strain) energy barrier to puncture. Our model provides a valuable tool to assess the puncture resistance of soft compressible materials and suggests new design strategies for sharp needles and puncture-resistant materials.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".