PONE-D-21-23372Buckling suppression of a thin-walled Miura-origami patterned tubePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Liu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 23 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jianguo Wang, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper presents a novel fold-line scheme for delaying the onset of global buckling in long

Curved Miura tubes. The Curved Miura tubes have an octagonal cross-section and the material

properties of steel. Each mountain and valley crease of these tubes is categorized as either a

hinge-like (HL) or a continuous (CT) fold line. HL lines only transfer the axial and shear forces

in the tube but they do not transfer moments along the crease. Continuous lines maintain the

material properties and thickness and of the tube and can transfer moments in addition to the

axial and shear forces. Four schemes are investigated in this paper: 1. All fold-lines are HL, 2.

All fold-lines are CT, 3. Only horizontal fold-lines are HL, and 4. Only slanted valley creases are

CT. In summary, the authors’ numerical model successfully showed that the different schemes

affect when global buckling is initiated in the tubes and that the fourth scheme appears to provide

the greatest suppression of the global buckling. The reviewer saw the novelty of the work for

Curved Miura tubes. Also, the manuscript is well organized. However, there are a few areas

where clarification and additional justification for the research approach taken is necessary to

fully understand the work. The authors should try to address the following points before the

paper is published:

� It is not clear why the authors’ selected the Curved Miura architecture for study. Miura

fold patterns are usually utilized for applications concerning deployability due to their

rigid-foldable behavior which, usually does not make them suitable for energy absorption

applications. Other geometries such as Yoshimura, Kresling, variations of square patterns

(including one used for Numerical Verification in this paper) and others have been

investigated by other groups in the past because these geometries can take advantage of

deformations in the facets as well as the creases for energy absorption.

� Energy absorption tubes usually do not use hinges or other compliant mechanisms. Even

if global buckling can be suppressed through all of compression, can one achieve enough

energy absorption to make Curved Miura with Scheme 4 competitive with other tube

geometries?

� Are Schemes 1-4 the only ones that can be generated? Could a Scheme 5 include CT

horizontal creases but all other fold line are HL? Are the schemes selected based on their

possible manufacturability?

� It is skeptical that the test conducted on the crash box from Zhou’s work counts as

numerical validation for this paper. Certain boundary conditions are not compatible with

the Curved Miura tube. Additionally, the Curved Miura tube simulations require node

couplings along creases for Schemes 1, 3, and 4 and all simulations use beams at the ends

of the tubes. Plus, for reasons not quite stated, the ends of the tubes have a greater

thickness than the walls of the tube. Curved Miura is also an entirely different geometry.

More justification should be given for this step.

� A comment on the choice for the height of the tubes would also be helpful. Although

there is a section of the paper entitled “Application to a Long Tube,” the tubes before this

section are already significantly longer than other pre-folded tubes in many energy

absorption studies. If the tubes with H=400 mm can trigger global buckling and are

already longer than most tubes studied, why is there another section devoted to tubes that

are even longer?

Other comments the authors may find helpful:

� In the Abstract, there is a sentence that says “delays global buckling by ~36%” but this

number has no context. Is it ~36% compared to some control tube? This also happens in

the Conclusion when it is said that Scheme 4 reduces the lateral deformation “in half.” In

half compared to what?

� “Unusual” is a strong word to use and is not elaborated upon in the Introduction. What

properties are “unusual”?

� “Except that” does not work for its respective sentence in the Introduction. Maybe “Also”

could be used instead?

� “Highly sensitivity” was probably meant to be “High sensitivity”

� In the Introduction, the work done by Guest and Pellegrino is used as an example of the

Kresling pattern being applied to thin-walled tubes but the work was not conducted for

energy absorption applications. It may be beneficial to add a reference for the research

completed by Professor Ichiro Hagiwara on metal Kresling tubes for energy absorption

applications.

� In the Materials and Methods section, there is one part that reads “…transfer axial force

and shear but moment.” I think this part is supposed to say “…but not moment.”

� In Figure 3, why are the horizontal lines at the top and bottom cross-sections categorized?

The reviewer’s understanding is that these are not creases.

� Why are facets 8mm thick in numerical simulations? Also, what are the dimensions of

l_1 and l_2?

� In the Results and Discussion, there is one line that reads “…as shown in Fig. 8” but this

figure does not include data. Is this a typo?

� In the Application to a Long Tube section, “conventional tubes” is used as a term but

how is this defined? Are these straight-walled tubes? Shorter tubes? Other pre-folded

tubes?

Reviewer #2: The work proposes an origami folding pattern to supress global buckling of a thin-walled tube. It is a very interesting and effective concept. There are some minor issues that need to be clarified.

1. "curved Miura pattern" is used. I wonder if here "curved" may be misunderstood as "curved" creases. If this is not a common term, the authors may need to think of another term.

2. In the finite element modelling of a crash box, details of the material properties should be given, in addition to the value of yield stress. Was the actual sress-strain curve used, or was a bi-linear model used, for example.

3. it would be interesting to discuss about tubes of the same/similar cross-sectional dimensions when the effect of patterning was studied. This needs to be mentioned.

4. It was not clear if global buckling was actually supressed or has just been delayed. It would be interesting to see how effectvie the method is for tubes of different lengths.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Buckling suppression of a thin-walled Miura-origami patterned tube

PONE-D-21-23372R1

Dear Dr. Liu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jianguo Wang, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: the authors have addressed my points. the manuscript has been revised accordinly, although it would have been better to incorporate the points in the revision in addition to response part.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********