A Static Analysis of Compression and Torsion of Kresling Origami Springs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Origami-inspired structures have increasingly been used to design various functional systems from solar cells to fluidic muscles due to their unique properties such as modulation of stiffness, and the extent of compressibility.Recently, Kresling origami springs (KOS) have gained large attention because they are deployed from compact cylindrical bellow-like structures while being able to exhibit several distinct restoring behaviours together with having a unique tension-torsion coupling.There have been few studies exploring the uni-axial response of KOS, but not the torsional aspect of the springs.In this short manuscript, we discuss the torsional response of KOS in terms of torque, relative rotation, torsional stiffness and their relation with the uni-axial response.We used a simple shell-based finite element model, specifically for KOS with a linear response (i.e.linear spring).The torsional behaviour of the KOS shown here along with the ease of manufacturing, cheap materials, and light and modular properties make origami-inspired systems a great fit for applications such as the design of torsional actuators.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".