Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Dynamic properties of high structural integrity auxetic open cell foam

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2004 Smart Mater. Struct. 13 49

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0964-1726/13/1/006)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 130.39.62.90
This content was downloaded on 28/08/2014 at 12:31

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING SMART MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES
Smart Mater. Struct. 13 (2004) 49–56 PII: S0964-1726(04)71001-0

Dynamic properties of high structural

integrity auxetic open cell foam
F Scarpa1 , L G Ciffo and J R Yates
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sheffield, Mappin Street,
Sheffield S1 3JD, UK

E-mail: f.scarpa@shef.ac.uk

Received 13 November 2002, in final form 6 October 2003

Published 26 November 2003
Online at stacks.iop.org/SMS/13/49 (DOI: 10.1088/0964-1726/13/1/006)

Abstract
This paper illustrates various dynamic characteristics of open cell compliant
polyurethane foam with auxetic (negative Poisson’s ratio) behaviour. The
foam is obtained from off-the-shelf open cell polyurethane grey foam with a
manufacturing process based on mechanical deformation on a mould in a
temperature-controlled oven. The Poisson’s ratio is measured with an image
processing technique based on edge detection with wavelet methods. Foam
samples have been tested in a viscoelastic analyser tensile test machine to
determine the Young’s modulus and loss factor for small dynamic strains.
The same samples have also been tested in an acoustic impedance tube to
measure acoustic absorption and specific acoustic resistance and reactance
with a transmissibility technique. Another set of tests has been set up on a
cam plastometer machine for constant strain rate dynamic crushing analysis.
All the tests have been carried out on auxetic and normal foam samples to
provide a comparison between the two types of cellular solids. The results
from the experimental tests are discussed and interpreted using
microstructure models for cellular materials existing in the literature. The
negative Poisson’s ratio foam presented in this paper shows an overall
superiority regarding damping and acoustic properties compared to the
original conventional foam. Its dynamic crushing performance is also
significantly superior to the normal foam, suggesting a possible use in
structural integrity compliant elements.
(Some figures in this article are in colour only in the electronic version)

1. Introduction the classical theory of elasticity: a homogeneous isotropic

Smart technologies in structural engineering rely upon the
use of embedded sensors, intelligent distributed systems and
novel materials [1]. Since 1987, when isotropic auxetic foam
was synthesized for the first time [2], negative Poisson’s
ratio materials have created some interest for potential
applications in structural integrity compliant structures,
sandwich components and, in general, smart passive structural
devices [3]. By definition, an auxetic (or negative Poisson’s
ratio) material expands in all directions when pulled in only
one, giving therefore a deformation kinematics opposite to that
of ‘conventional’ materials. This behaviour does not contradict
1 Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.
thermodynamically correct 3D solid has a potential Poisson’s
ratio range between −1.0 and 0.5, while anisotropic solids can
also have larger values in magnitude [4]. A negative Poisson’s
ratio coefficient for a material could lead to an increase
in indentation resistance [5], enhanced bending stiffness in
structural elements and shear resistance [6, 7], optimal passive
tuning of structural vibration [8] and enhanced dielectric
properties for microwave absorbers [9]. References [10, 11]
give a good overview of the characteristics and applications of
negative Poisson ratio solids.
In previous work the dynamic properties of cellular solids
have been analysed through simulation methods [12] and tested
with wave dispersion techniques [13] and modal analysis in
honeycomb structures [14]. Other authors have carried out

0964-1726/04/010049+08$30.00 © 2004 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK 49

F Scarpa et al
800 µm
Figure 1. Microstructure of conventional PUR grey foam (20-fold
magnification).
experimental tests on the acoustic absorption properties of
re-entrant Scott-based foams [15]. In this paper the authors
focus on specific auxetic foam manufactured following a
particular process. The foam exhibits remarkable resilience
under dynamic impact loading at high constant strain rates
compared to the conventional foam used as a starting base. The
same type of foam has been tested with a viscoanalyser and an
acoustic impedance tube facility in order to give an exhaustive
characterization of the dynamic behaviour of the cellular
material. The measured dynamic mechanical properties are
important to define the small-amplitude vibration response of
foam panels and cushion seat pads [16]. The foam specimens
have also been tested using a transmissibility technique
in an acoustic impedance tube to measure the acoustic
absorption properties and the specific acoustic impedance.
These properties are essential to define the frequency ranges
where the cellular material acts as a sound absorber or
insulator [18]. The high strain rate impact characteristics
have been detected using a cam plastometer instrument.
The rationale for these experiments is that foam cores in
sandwich structures are used in packaging solutions and energy
absorption devices [20], and that the knowledge of dynamic
and acoustic properties of foams is also particularly important
to define the vibroacoustic signature of sandwich panels with
a cellular solid core [21]. All tests have also been carried
out on specimens of conventional foam used to manufacture
the auxetic samples in order to provide an indication of how
the manufacturing process affected the overall properties of
the foam. The tests indicated higher damping loss factors,
increased sound absorbing characteristics at low frequencies
and insulation properties at middle and high frequency ranges
compared to the conventional foam. The dynamic crushing
properties were remarkable in the auxetic foam case, while the
conventional foam did not show a significant resilience at high
constant strain rate loading. The storage modulus of the auxetic
foam showed a decrease compared to that of the conventional
material. This fact agreed well with the characteristics of the
linear part of the stress–strain curves at low strain rate carried
out in previous work on negative Poisson’s ratio specimens.
This paper is organized as follow. Section 2 presents
the details and results of the tests carried out by the
50
600 µm
Figure 2. Microstructure of negative Poisson’s ratio foam (20-fold
magnification).
authors. Section 3 gives a discussion of the results, with
comparisons between the auxetic and conventional foam
explained through theoretical equations related to the different
dynamic properties examined. Section 4 then gives the final
conclusions of the work presented herein.
2. Experimental methods and results
2.1. Manufacturing of the foam sample
The auxetic foam specimens were manufactured from open
cell polyurethane grey foam supplied by McMaster-Carr Co.,
Chicago, IL. The density of the foam was 32 kg m−3 , with
nominal tensile strength of 186 kPa and compression strength
of 4.75 kPa at 25% deflection. The relative density [20] of the
foam is close to 0.03. Figure 1 shows an enlarged section of the
conventional foam. The foam was cut into circular specimens,
having a diameter of 40 mm, with scissors and a cutter and
inserted into a mould made from aluminium tubes with inner
diameters of 19 mm and lengths 230 mm. The specimens
were compressed with an axial deformation by a piston. The
imposed volumetric axial compression was 3.5:1. The mould
was then put in a temperature-controlled oven at 190 ◦ C for
50 min and then left to cool. The specimens were extracted
and slightly tensioned in order to relax the external cylindrical
surface. The auxetic specimens had a final diameter of 19 mm,
with a length of 40 mm. The resulting deformation of the unit
cell into a re-entrant polyhedron structure [22] is shown in
figure 2.
The Poisson’s ratio of the material was measured using
an image data detection technique applied to pictures taken
of the foam specimen under tensile loading [24]. The outer
edges of the auxetic foam sample were connected in the
longitudinal direction to the internal surface of a clamp using
epoxy glue and different tensile engineering strains (up to
135%) were applied. After each loading, the specimen was
returned to the initial undeformed position. The tests were
carried out at a temperature of 19 ◦ C. Figure 3 shows the
behaviour of the Poisson’s ratio versus the tensile engineering
strain. One can observe that the measured Poisson’s ratio
mean value is approaching −0.04 for tensile strains between

Figure 3. Poisson’s ratio of the auxetic foam versus tensile strain.
60% and 117%. The magnitude of the negative Poisson’s
ratio is small compared to other foams previously reported
in other publications [2, 16, 17, 22]. A combined low
radial compression and possible cell morphology are likely
explanations for this behaviour. However, the value of the
Poisson’s ratio remains negative for all the tensile strain
range examined. Although small, the auxetic effect of the
specimens was noticeable, particularly considering the fact that
the original open cell polyurethane foam had a density around
30–35 pores inch−1 . All values are affected by an average
error of 8% on the base measurements. After those values,
the Poisson’s ratio of the specimen increases for increasing
tensile loading. The overall behaviour of the Poisson’s ratio is
different from the one recorded for other auxetic foams tested
in the literature [28]. Possible explanations could be credited to
surface effects introduced by the small cell size and a difference
in topology because of the high reticulation present in these
foams.
2.2. Storage modulus and loss factor with dynamic pre-strain
The viscoelastic properties at quasi-static conditions and
room temperature have been tested using a Dynatest
VA-2000 viscoanalyser [23]. The samples of both the
conventional and auxetic foam have been subjected to a
uniaxial tension–compression loading. A maximum dynamic
pre-strain of 0.02% at 0.1 Hz has been imposed to perform
the test. The test parameters have been chosen in order to
determine a loss factor and Young’s modulus at quasi-static
conditions, well within the linear elastic deformation range of
the foam samples [20]. The storage modulus E S of the samples
has been measured using the following formula [23]:
E S = k Fc Ff (1)
where k is the measured stiffness (N m−1 ), Fc is the correction
factor (0.97 for a cylindrical specimen) and Ff is the stress
concentration factor:
Ff = h/Se (2)
where h is the specimen height and Se = πr 2 is the specimen
cross section. The loss factor (or tangent modulus) has been
Dynamic properties of high structural integrity auxetic open cell foam
Figure 4. Comparison of the storage modulus of conventional and
auxetic foam versus engineering strain under tension–compression
test.
computed using the classical formulation [25]:
EI
tan δ = (3)
ES
where E I is the imaginary part of the foam complex modulus
and E S is the storage modulus. The tests have been carried out
at 20 ◦ C.
Figures 3 and 4 show, respectively, the comparisons
between the Young’s modulus and loss factors for the
conventional and auxetic foam samples. The tensile Young’s
modulus of the auxetic foam specimen is significantly lower
than that of the conventional foam, with a mean value of
19 kPa, corresponding to 20% of the Young’s modulus of the
conventional foam. It is notable that the Young’s modulus
values show a significant stability for the two samples over
the engineering strain range chosen for the experiment. The
loss factors associated with the two specimens have instead
a different behaviour. The conventional foam shows a
monotonic increase of the loss factor, from a value of 0.09 at
a dynamic strain of 0.01%, to a value of 0.116 at 0.02%. The
auxetic foam instead shows higher values, with an increasing
trend up to a strain of 0.016, then decreasing steadily to a
value of the loss factor of 0.14. The average increase of
the loss tangent and damping performance compared to the
conventional foam is of the order of 30%. All values were
affected by a nominal error of 6% on the base measurements.
2.3. Characteristic acoustic impedance and absorption
coefficients
The acoustic properties of the foam samples have been tested
using an acoustic impedance tube manufactured following the
ASTM E 1050-98 Standard [26]. The tube has a circular cross
section diameter of 19 mm, with a suitable length in order
to perform the tests in the range from 300 Hz to 4.5 kHz.
The characteristic acoustic impedance is measured with a
transmissibility method, between the signals detected by two
ENTRAN EPE-561-M microphones with a sensitivity of 52.79
and 51.77 mV ψ −1 . The excitation signal was a Gaussian
white noise generated by a digital analyser (SigLab 20-22A)
51
F Scarpa et al
Figure 5. Comparison of the loss factor of conventional and auxetic
foam versus engineering strain under tension–compression test.
Figure 6. Comparison of acoustic absorption coefficients versus
frequency for the conventional and auxetic foam.
connected to a 200 W amplifier (StageLine STA-100), having
a dynamic range between 10 Hz and 20 KHz with an output of
1 V. The acoustic excitation was produced by a JBL GT0425e
woofer with integrated tweeter with a diameter of 100 mm,
connected to the impedance tube with an exponential horn to
produce the lower limit cut-off frequency effect.
The auxetic and conventional foam specimens have been
tested at a room temperature of 20 ◦ C. The corresponding air
density and speed of sound for the ambient test conditions were,
respectively, 1.21 kg m−3 and 343.2 m s−1 . Figure 6 shows the
acoustic absorption coefficients for the two specimens between
500 and 1500 Hz. The absorption coefficient α is calculated
as
α = 1 − |R|2 (4)
where the reflection coefficient is computed in the following
manner:
W −1
R= , (5)
W +1
W = Wr − iWi being the specific acoustic impedance of
the cellular material [27].
The auxetic specimen foam is 100% more absorbent at
500 Hz compared to the conventional foam sample. The
52
Figure 7. Comparison of the real part of the specific acoustic
impedance for conventional and auxetic foam versus frequency.
Figure 8. Comparison of the imaginary part of the specific acoustic
impedance for conventional and auxetic foam versus frequency.
significant increase in acoustic absorption for the auxetic
foam is evident up to 1080 Hz. At 1240 Hz the two
foams have the same absorption properties, while above this
threshold value the conventional foam is more absorbent,
with a 17.5% increase at 1.5 kHz. The increased absorption
characteristics are also shown in the behaviour of the specific
acoustic resistivity, which is always above the unit value in the
frequency range examined, for the auxetic specimen (figure 7).
The reactance of the two foams (plotted as −Wi in figure 8)
has a similar pattern up to 1240 Hz, where the two foams
have coinciding absorption coefficients. Above that value,
the imaginary part of the acoustic impedance has positive
values, contributing to a lower reflection coefficient for the
conventional foam.
2.4. Dynamic crushing at constant strain rate
The two sets of specimens were also tested using a cam
plastometer [24] developed for constant high strain rate tests
with large displacements. The profile of the cam dictates
the displacement–time relationship during loading. The cam
plastometer used in these experiments is capable of conducting
 Dynamic properties of high structural integrity auxetic open cell foam

tests at constant true strain or constant engineering strain at

rates up to 200 s−1 and displacements up to 50 mm. For (a)
these tests the cam used provided a displacement of 50 mm
at a constant cross-head velocity, which generated a constant
engineering strain rate loading of the sample. Eight 40 mm
long, 19 mm diameter specimens were packed together to form
a quasi-circular cross section of 80 mm diameter. Two different
constant engineering strain rates were applied to the pack of
samples, at 15 and 38 s−1 . These strain rates were equivalent
to a velocity of 1.5 and 3.8 m s−1 , respectively. The signals
related to the reaction force and displacement histories were
detected using a NovaTech 10 kN load cell and a purpose-made
capacitive displacement transducer, respectively. The output
signals were collected using a LabView program through a
National Instruments DataTranslation 3005 multifunctional
I/O board in an Intel-based PC. The signals were sampled
at a frequency of 350 Hz. All tests were performed at a (b)
temperature of 18 ◦ C and humidity around 45%. Figure 9
shows the comparison of time histories of the auxetic and
normal specimens for a strain rate of 15 s−1 . It is evident that
the auxetic samples clearly show a time–load history when
subjected to dynamic crushing. In comparison, the normal
open cell samples do not show any kind of noticeable resilience
under the high-strain loading. One can also notice that the
load overshoot is due only to the load cell sensitivity when the
upper plate of the cam plastometer comes into contact with
the lower plate. Apart from this peak, only the sensor noise
is recorded. Figure 10 shows the experimental stress–strain
curves for the auxetic specimens at the two constant strain rate
values. A feature to be noted is the low strain rate sensitivity for
engineering strains up to 0.54. After that value, the specimens
Figure 9. Time histories of displacements and loads for the foams
loaded with a constant strain rate of 38 s−1 showed a stiffening under dynamic crushing loading conditions at 15 s−1 . (a) Auxetic
effect during the densification process. The data from the foam, (b) conventional foam. The full curve represents the force
auxetic foams have then been processed to extract a stress– history; the broken curve represents the displacement history.
strain curve using the model suggested by Nagy et al [19].
The experimental data were fitted with a polynomial of order
9 and then fitted to the following formula:

a+bε
ε̇
σ (ε) = σ0 (ε) (6)
ε̇0

where σ0 (ε) is a reference stress–strain curve and ε̇0 is the

reference strain rate. The coefficients a and b were identified
through a non-linear least squares fitting technique, with a
and b being equal, respectively, to 0.997 and −0.173. The
reference strain rate ε̇0 was 1.43 s−1 . Figure 11 shows the
Nagy fitting results carried over all the samples at the different
strain rates.

3. Discussion of results

The auxetic foam described in this paper shows some

characteristic features common to other negative Poisson’s
ratio cellular solids studied by previous authors [22, 28]. From
the initial tests carried out with the viscoanalyser, it is evident
how the auxetic foam Young’s modulus (corresponding to the
storage modulus) has a significantly lower value compared to
the conventional foam one. This result is consistent with model
prediction and experimental tests carried out [28] on Scott
industrial foam. It is notable that, for the imposed volumetric
Figure 10. Experimental stress–strain curves for the auxetic grey
foam at 15 and 38 s−1 .
compression ratio of 3.5, the Choi and Lakes model [22]
predicts a ratio between the re-entrant and conventional foam
of 0.29. For the foam considered in this paper we have a
stable ratio of 0.2, also for increasing dynamic strains. The
experimental Young’s modulus ratio for Scott-based foams

53
F Scarpa et al
Figure 11. Stress–strain curves obtained with Nagy’s fitting model
from the experimental data of figure 10.
with a relative density of 0.03 has an interpolated value of
0.43, higher than the one predicted by the model. However,
from figure 2 one can notice that the auxetic foam unit cells
have ribs folded over and with general localized contact. The
regularity of the cell structure of the re-entrant foam is also
quite significant.
The loss factors for reduced dynamic strain shows an
overall increase in the auxetic foam sample compared to
the conventional one. This is well in accordance with
experiments performed in auxetic foam samples at high levels
of pre-strain [17]. The loss factor in viscoelastic cellular
materials depends directly on the loss factor of the core
material phase [20]. In this case, it appears that plasticization,
temperature-related residual stresses and mutual fretting of the
folded ribs have contributed to increasing the effective loss
factor of the core material of the ribs. Localized contact can
also have created a sort of closed cell layout with membrane
stresses in several areas of the foam’s cross section specimen,
thus contributing to an increase in the effective loss factor
of the foam. The increased loss factor of the foam could
be useful in sandwich structure applications where the modal
loss factor associated with normal vibrating modes depends on
the product of the shear modulus versus the loss factor of the
sandwich core filler [29].
The specific acoustic impedance behaviour of this kind
of cellular solid is consistent with previous measurements
done by Howell et al [15] on re-entrant samples of Scott
foam. The acoustic absorption coefficient shows a clear
peak value at lower frequency compared to the conventional
foam one. Chen and Lakes [30] found a correlation between
the convolutedness parameter of cell ribs and the cut-off
frequency resonance of general foams to explain the different
wave dispersion characteristics of conventional and negative
Poisson’s ratio foams. Auxetic foams have unit cell structures
more convoluted than conventional ones, thus leading to lower
cut-off frequencies, better sound absorption characteristics at
low frequencies and low acoustic reflection performances at
high frequencies. Figure 6 shows clearly that all these features
are present in the foam described in this paper. Figure 7
shows also that, for the lower frequency range, the real specific
54
acoustic impedance Wr is significantly higher compared to that
of the conventional foam. For elastic porous materials [27]
the real part of the acoustic impedance is proportional to the
structural characteristic Q p , which is used to describe frictional
losses in a porous medium:

1 − H 200µ
Qp = (7)
HD kρ0 c0
where µ = 1.85 × 10−5 is the dynamic viscosity coefficient
(in Pa s), ρ0 and c0 are, respectively, the air density and sound
velocity in air and k = 2π f/c0 is the wavenumber, where f is
the frequency in hertz. The parameter H is the porosity of the
foam:
H = 1 − ρ/ρs (8)
where ρ/ρs is the relative density of the foam and D is the
pore diameter. If we consider Vr , the volumetric compression
ratio of the foam, we can define the ratio between the structural
characteristics of the re-entrant and conventional foams:
Q rp 1
ρc /ρs
−1
Q̄ p = = . (9)
Q cp 1
ρc /ρs
− Vr
In equation (9) we have considered the pore diameter ratio
Dr /Dc being proportional to the volumetric compression ratio
Vr . If we consider a relative density for the conventional foam
of 0.03, we obtain an increase of the structural characteristics
due solely to geometric unit cell configuration of 8%. In reality,
the structural factor Q p is only one of the structural coefficients
describing the real part of the specific acoustic impedance. A
more general definition of structural characteristic is [27]
Q = Q p [1 + qe (1 + q0 )]. (10)
The factor q0 is related to the relative density of the foam:
the smaller the material density, the easier it is for the pore
walls to move. The factor can be approximated as

2
−3 ρ
q0 = 1.0 × 10 . (11)
ρs
It is evident that the volumetric axial compression ratio
value of 3.5 for the re-entrant foam would involve a 10-fold
increase of the coefficient q0 compared to the conventional
foam. The coefficient qe is proportional to the flow resistivity
parameter (N m−2 ), which is affected by the chemical
composition of the foam skeleton [27]. The flow resistivity
is measured with different techniques [18] from the acoustic
impedance transmissibility one presented in this paper. At
this stage we cannot draw conclusions over a possible relation
between auxetic foam mechanics and this parameter. We only
observe that it is likely that damping due to internal friction
losses could increase the flow resistivity of the auxetic foam.
If this energy loss mechanism is proportional to the structural
damping factor of the auxetic foam, the re-entrant cellular
solid described in this paper, with its increased loss factor
compared to conventional foam, could well show increased
flow resistivity values.
The strain rate, micro-inertia and localization effects affect
the dynamic crushing behaviour of foams [20]. For high strain

rates, the normalized energy absorbed per unit volume of open
cell foam under impact conditions can be described as [20]


W σp ρ 1 suggest the possibility of using this material to enhance
= 1.4 ln (12)
Es E s ρs 1.4(ρ/ρs )
where σp is the plastic collapse stress of the foam. If we
consider only the geometric term of equation (12), involving
the relative densities, we would obtain an increase of 2.1
times the normalized energy absorbed by the auxetic foam
compared to the conventional one. However, this consideration
is not sufficient to explain the remarkable resilience of the re-
entrant foam to a dynamic crushing loading. One has also to
consider the ratio of the quantity (σp /E s ) between the auxetic
and conventional foam. For the strain rate considered in the
test presented in this paper, the auxetic foam shows a plastic
collapse stress around 1.1 MPa. We do not have available
the analogous value for the conventional foam. However,
we notice that existing auxetic Scott foam samples [28]
show increases of the plastic collapse stress compared to
conventional foams. Also, the manufacturing route used to
produce the re-entrant foam leads to a decrease of the effective
Young’s modulus of the solid phase E s compared to that of the
conventional foam. These factors contribute to the significant
resilience of the auxetic foam compared to the regular foam
sample.
Equation (12) takes only into account the viscous effect
under high strain loading [20]. As mentioned before, the
micro-dynamics of the unit cell also plays an important role
during dynamic crushing. Because of strain softening, the
crushing is localized in a thin layer where strain rates are very
large. In conventional foams the buckling motion, which is the
main one responsible for plastic cell collapse [20], is resisted
by the inertia of the cell walls, increasing the crushing stress
and diffusing the deforming region. In re-entrant foams, the
cell walls are already buckled, leading therefore to a more
localized band of high strain rates in the foam sample. The
densification strain is also enhanced in auxetic foams, being
represented by the following formula [20]:


ρ Guided Wave Lett. 10 451–3
εD = 1 − 1.4 . (13)
ρs
With a higher relative density in auxetic foams, compared to
conventional ones, the re-entrant cellular solids show a shock
enhancement during high strain rates.
4. Conclusions
In this paper the dynamic properties of a novel concept of
auxetic foam for sandwich components has been presented.
The auxetic foam shows remarkable structural integrity
features under dynamic loading and good acoustic absorption
properties in low frequency bandwidths. Initial tests with a
viscoanalyser facility show higher loss factors under small
cyclic dynamic strains. The linear elastic stiffness of these
foams is lower compared to that of the conventional foams
used during the manufacturing route.
The use of auxetic cellular solids can improve the design
of smart structural elements. In fact, a ‘soft’ but highly
compliant material (with synclastic bending features) can be
Dynamic properties of high structural integrity auxetic open cell foam
used in applications where large nonlinear elastic deformations
are needed. Moreover, the large displacements given by
the negative Poisson’s ratio effects for a given applied load
self-sensing structural components. The initial tests in this
paper suggest an increase of the loss factor compared to the
conventional foams. However, more investigation is also
needed to better understand the viscoelastic properties of these
foams, especially in the time–frequency domain, and to obtain
reliable master curves for vibroacoustic design.
Acknowledgments
This work has been funded through the Royal Society grant RS
22404. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous
referees for their useful comments.
References
[1] Janocha H (ed) 1999 Adaptronics and Smart Structures:
Basics, Materials, Design and Applications (Berlin:
Springer)
[2] Lakes R S 1987 Foam structures with a negative Poisson’s
ratio Science 253 1038–40
[3] Evans K E 1991 Auxetic polymers: a new range of materials
Endeav. New Ser. 15 170–4
[4] Alderson K L, Alderson A and Evans K E 1997 The
interpretation of strain-dependent Poisson’s ratio in auxetic
polyethylene J. Strain Anal. 32 201–12
[5] Lakes R S and Elms K 1993 Indentability of conventional and
negative Poisson’s ratio foams J. Compos. Mater. 27
1193–202
[6] Lakes R S 1993 Design considerations for negative Poisson’s
ratio materials ASME J. Mech. Des. 115 696–700
[7] Scarpa F and Tomlin P J 2000 On the transverse shear modulus
of negative Poisson’s ratio honeycomb structures Fatigue
Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 23 717–20
[8] Scarpa F and Tomlinson G 2000 Theoretical characteristics of
the vibration of sandwich plates with in-plane negative
Poisson’s ratio values J. Sound Vib. 230 45–67
[9] Smith F C and Scarpa F 2000 The electromagnetic properties
of re-entrant dielectric honeycombs IEEE Microwave
[10] http://silver.neep.wisc.edu/ ∼lakes/Poisson.html
[11] http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=168
[12] Scarpa F and Tomlinson G 1998 Vibro-acoustics and damping
analysis of negative Poisson’s ratio honeycomb structures
Proc. 5th SPIE Annu. Int. Symp. on Smart Structures and
Materials (San Diego, CA, March, 1998) (Bellingham, WA:
SPIE Optical Engineering Press)
[13] Chen C P and Lakes R S 1989 Dynamic wave dispersion and
loss properties of conventional and negative Poisson’s ratio
polymeric cellular materials Cell. Polym. 8 343–59
[14] Scarpa F and Tomlinson G 1998 Investigations on negative
Poisson’s ratio honeycombs Proc. Experimental Techniques
and Design in Composite Materials 4 (Sheffield, UK, Sept.
1998) ed M S Found
[15] Howell B, Prendergast P and Hansen L 1994 Examination of
acoustic behaviour of negative Poisson’s ratio materials
Appl. Acoust. 43 141–8
[16] Lakes R S and Lowe A 2000 Negative Poisson’s ratio foam as
a seat cushion material Cell. Polym. 19 157–67
[17] Martz E O, Lakes R S and Park J B 1996 Hysteresis behaviour
and specific damping capacity of negative Poisson’s ratio
foams Cell. Polym. 15 349–64
[18] Beranek L 1988 Noise and Vibration Control (Washington,
DC: Institute of Noise Control Engineering)
55
F Scarpa et al
[19] Nagy A, Ko W and Lindholm U S 1964 Mechanical behaviour
of foamed materials under dynamic compression J. Cell.
Plastics 10 127–34
[20] Gibson L J and Ashby M F 1997 Cellular Solids: Structure
and Properties 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press)
[21] Ruzzene M F and Scarpa F 2003 Control of longitudinal wave
propagation in sandwich structures with auxetic core
J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. at press
[22] Choi J B and Lakes R S 1995 Analysis of elastic modulus of
conventional foams and of re-entrant foam materials with a
negative Poisson’s ratio Int. J. Mech. Sci. 1 51–9
[23] Metravib R D S VA815, VA2000, VA4000 Viscoanalyzer User
Manual http://www.metravib.fr/
[24] Scarpa F, Yates J and Ciffo L G 2002 Dynamic crushing of
open cell polyurethane auxetic foam Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng.
C 216 1–4
56
[25] Moore D F 1993 Viscoelastic Machine Elements. Elastomers
and Lubricants in Machine Systems (Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann)
[26] ASTM Standard E1050-98 2001 Standard Test Method for
Impedance and Absorption of Acoustical Materials using a
Tube, Two Microphones and Digital Frequency Analysis
System (West Conshohoken, PA: ASTM International)
[27] Voronina N 1998 An empirical model for elastic porous
materials Appl. Acoust. 55 67–83
[28] Choi J B and Lakes R S 1992 Nonlinear properties of polymer
cellular materials with a negative Poisson’s ratio J. Mater.
Sci. 27 4678–84
[29] Tomlinson G 2000 Structural damping enhancement using a
novel approach—a forward look Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. C
214 103–12
[30] Chen C P and Lakes R S 1996 Micromechanical analysis of
dynamic behaviour of conventional and negative Poisson’s
ratio foams ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 118 285–8