JOM

DOI: 10.1007/s11837-015-1322-y
Ó 2015 The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society

Additive Manufacturing of Metal Cellular Structures: Design and

Fabrication

LI YANG,1,4 OLA HARRYSSON,2 DENIS CORMIER,3 HARVEY WEST,2

HAIJUN GONG,1 and BRENT STUCKER1

1.—Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, USA.

2.—Department of Industrial & System Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
NC 27695, USA. 3.—Department of Industrial & System Engineering, Rochester Institute of
Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA. 4.—e-mail: li.yang.1@louisville.edu

With the rapid development of additive manufacturing (AM), high-quality

fabrication of lightweight design-efficient structures no longer poses an in-
surmountable challenge. On the other hand, much of the current research and
development with AM technologies still focuses on material and process de-
velopment. With the design for additive manufacturing in mind, this article
explores the design issue for lightweight cellular structures that could be
efficiently realized via AM processes. A unit-cell-based modeling approach
that combines experimentation and limited-scale simulation was demon-
strated, and it was suggested that this approach could potentially lead to
computationally efficient design optimizations with the lightweight structures
in future applications.

Cellular structures are characterized by the large

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, additive manufacturing (AM) has
received considerable attention for its potential in
transforming global manufacturing industries. In
some of the leading application areas such as
aerospace, biomedical, and automotive, AM has
demonstrated unprecedented flexibility for part con-
solidation, function integration, and lightweighting of
structure and component designs.1–3 Lightweight de-
sign is one area that AM addresses well where other
traditional manufacturing technologies become
largely impractical.4–6 Because of the requirements
for design optimization and the complex resulting
geometries, full-freedom lightweight design often
involves multiscale analysis, which makes pure finite-
element based design computationally demanding.
Topology optimization methods have been investi-
gated as a feasible solution.7–9 However, currently
topology optimization has been used only for max-
imum stiffness design to date, and it lacks sufficient
capabilities for hierarchical design integrations at
multiple scales. Another common approach that at-
tempts to achieve the blalance between design con-
venience/efficiency and design accuracy is the unit cell
design approach, which uses representative geome-
tries to efficiently perform design tasks.
percentage of porosity in the solids10 and can often
be treated as assemblies of cells with solid edges or
faces.11 In past decades, cellular structures have
received a lot of interest due to their promising
potential in a wide range of engineering applica-
tions.10–13 It is well known that cellular structures
exhibit a combination of mechanical and thermal
properties such as high stiffness-to-weight ratio,11,13–15
high energy absorption,16–18 and low heat conduc-
tivity,19 which are highly desired in applications such
as aerospace structures, automobiles components,
stiffening spatial fillers, impact cushions, thermal in-
sulations, sandwich cores, vibration dampers, and civil
structures.13 In addition, due to their large surface
areas, cellular structures are also extensively used as
catalysts and filters 10,14,20,21 and biological inter-
faces.22–24
The unique advantage of adopting analytical
modeling-based cellular design is that it becomes
possible to integrate multiple design objectives and
to achieve a combination of mechanical properties
through design optimization. This is enabled by the
explicit geometry–property relationships of the rep-
resentative unit cells, which have simplified forms
and could be readily manipulated via optimization
methods. Traditionally, due to manufacturability
 Yang, Harrysson, Cormier, West, Gong, and Stucker

issues, limited theories exist for the design method-

ology of three-dimensional (3D) cellular structures
that can be verified experimentally. In addition, the
use of AM processes also brings about manufactur-
ing-related issues such as staircase effects, surface
finish, and defects, which also need to be considered
in the design.
This article demonstrates a feasible cellular
design approach based on analytical modeling of
unit cell geometries and experimental verification
using powder-bed fusion AM processes. Mechanical
properties of a re-entrant auxetic cellular geometry
including Poisson’s ratio, elastic modulus, and yield
strength were derived based on the solid material
Fig. 1. Unit cell designs.
and the geometric design of the unit cell structure.
The design tool also attempted to incorporate the
design factors related to multiple manufacturing
issues with the AM processes. The results were
verified by experiments and simulations to verify
the accuracy of the model and the boundary effect of
the actual structures.

DESIGN
Unit cells have been widely employed for the de-
sign of cellular structures due to their ability to
simplify analysis and represent characteristics of
the geometries.11,13 The unit cell structure could be
effectively treated as a network of beams or trusses
connected by rotational or rigid joints. Both rota-
tional hinge joints and rigid joint assumptions have
been adopted in previous modeling analyses with
cellular structures.25,26 Preliminary study with
metal cellular parts fabricated by selective laser
melting (SLM) or electron beam melting (EBM)
processes exhibit bending dominated strut behavior.
Therefore, in this article the rigid joint assumption
was adopted for metal cellular structures.
Figure 1 shows the cellular structure investigated
in this study. Figure 1a shows a re-entrant auxetic
cellular structure, which is expected to exhibit nega-
tive Poisson’s ratios in all three principal directions.
The auxetic structure was of interest due to its ex-
ceptional shear performance and energy absorp-
tion.27,28 Figure 1b shows the geometric design
parameters of this re-entrant auxetic structure, which
includes the length of the vertical strut H, the length of
the re-entrant strut L, re-entrant angle h, and the di-
mensions of the cross sections of the strut (not shown
in Fig. 1b). In this article, some modeling details of the
auxetic cellular design are presented to demonstrate
the design methodology. Additional details about the
modeling are presented elsewhere.29–31
Due to structural symmetry, the re-entrant auxetic
structure is represented by two characteristic direc-
tions, which are the z direction and x or y directions as
Fig. 2. Uniaxial loading in z direction.
auxetic structure from either z or x directions. The
equivalent force F applied to each unit cell could be
readily obtained via force equilibrium, which is not
shown here. Depending on the loading condition,
different types of structural symmetry could be fur-
ther applied to the unit cell structure and simplify it.
Figures 2 and 3 show the simplified structures under
z-directional and x-directional compressive loading.
Note that due to the lower degree of symmetry, the
structural analysis for the x direction is more com-
plex, and the re-entrant struts at two directions are
subject to different loading cases.
Using the similar approach that was developed by
Onck et al.32 and further incorporates shear-
induced deformations, a set of equations was obtained
for the elastic modulus E and Poisson’s ratios m of the
re-entrant auxetic structure as:29–31
2
L
ðEt 6
2 þ 5GÞ cos hða  cos hÞ
mzx ¼  (1)
L2 sin2 h 2
Et2
þ 6 sin h
5G þ E
4a

shown in Fig. 1a. The modeling was established for

an ideal structure that has infinite numbers of unit
cells in each of the three principal directions, which sin2 h
minimizes boundary effects. Consider a remote mxz ¼  (2)
compressive stress that is applied on the re-entrant cos hða  cos hÞ
Additive Manufacturing of Metal Cellular Structures: Design and Fabrication

Fig. 3. Uniaxial loading in x (equivalent to y) direction.

the structure was considered to fully yield when the

entire cross section of an arbitrary strut in the unit
cell achieves the yield strength of the material. For
a relatively ductile material with low-strain-rate
sensitivity, this approach could provide a rough
estimation of the structural yield strength. The
stress distribution of a beam under the combination
of normal stress, shear stress, bending moment, and
the maximum allowable stress (i.e., the yield
strength) of the re-entrant auxetic structure under
x-directional and z-directional loading were
obtained by solving for Eqs. 5 and 6:

9r2z L4 sin6 h 3
ðr2Y  16t4
Þt 4r2 L4 sin4 h cos2 hrY 2L3 sin3 h
 z  ¼ rz
4rY 36r2 L4 sin6 h 8
64r2Y  1 t4 t
(5)

9L4 ðacos hÞ2 sin2 h cos2 hr2x 3

ðr2Y  16t4
Þt
4rY
  4 2 2
16L4 cos h
2 þ 4 ða  cos hÞ sin hrY rx
sin h
2
   (6)
Fig. 4. Modulus of the structure. 144L4 ðacos hÞ2 sin2 h cos2 hr2x
256r2Y  t4
t
L3 ða  cos hÞ sin h cos hrx
¼
4

ða  cos hÞ With the analytical equations (Eqs. 1–6), the

Ez ¼ (3) mechanical properties of the re-entrant auxetic
2aL2 sin2 h
Et2
þ L4
ð2Et 4 þ 3L2
5Gt2
Þ sin4 h
structure could be readily designed. Figures 4 and 5
show the design maps of the modulus and strength of
the structure in z and x directions, respectively. The
1 1 mechanical properties of the re-entrant auxetic cel-
Ex ¼  L2 (4)
L2 cos2 3
hða  cos hÞ ð2Et4 þ 5Gt 2Þ
lular structure in two representative directions
exhibit opposite trends, which coincide with the
where a = H/L and G is the shear modulus of the Poisson’s ratio trends in these directions. With larger
solid material. Shear was included as it was found negative Poisson’s ratio, the mechanical properties of
that for medium relative density designs, the shear- the structure also tend to increase. This makes it
induced deflection of the struts could not be ne- possible to use the Poisson’s ratio as a design indicator
glected.30 In the calculation of yield strength of the for quick design screening. It is worth noting that
structures, the von Mises criterion was used, and there exist two possible failure modes when the
 Yang, Harrysson, Cormier, West, Gong, and Stucker

Fig. 5. Strength of the structure.

Table I. Geometrical design for experiments

h (°) H (mm) L (mm) Relative density (%) mxz mzx

A1/B1 70 5.5 4.25 13.41 –2.71 –0.37
A2/B2 70 4.14 3.2 22.06 –2.71 –0.37
A3/B3 45 7.74/ 7.8 3.77 22.45 –0.52 –1.90
A4/B4 45 6.9/ 6.46 3.3 27.18 –0.51 –1.90

structure was loaded in the z direction, which are the
yield failure and the elastic failure. The elastic failure
mode is common for cellular structures with struts
oriented along the loading directions, and it could be
catastrophic to the structures. Therefore, by obtaining
design maps as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, designers can
choose combinations of mechanical properties in the
two principal directions and avoid undesirable me-
chanical behavior. Another interesting observation is
that for cellular structures, the Poisson’s ratios of the
structures are also controllable. For solid materials,
the Poisson’s ratio is usually considered a constant,
which determines the bulk deformation behavior of
the structures. With the control of Poisson’s ratio, it
becomes possible now to carefully tune the structures
to respond to multiaxis stress in specific ways, which
might possess practical values in applications such
as energy absorption and assembly fitting.
EXPERIMENTS
When the designed cellular structures are con-
verted into real structures, some of the assumptions
made during modeling are no longer applicable and
Additive Manufacturing of Metal Cellular Structures: Design and Fabrication
therefore need to be addressed by experiments and
simulations. This information is then incorporated
into the model designs as corrective factors or used
for further analysis and more accurate first-princi-
ple-based modeling. Experiments could provide
accurate information about the properties of the
actual structures. However, care must be taken to
properly decouple factors that could introduce
errors into the analysis. Due to the computational
difficulty, the simulation of the cellular structure
could only be performed on limited scales. On the
other hand, the simulation results usually allow for
detailed investigations of the boundary effects
without complicating the discussions with manufac-
turing-related issues. The proper combination of both
methods facilitates rapid verification of the cellular
models and can further provide insights for model
improvement.
In this study, re-entrant auxetic cellular samples
made from Ti6Al4 V using EBM was used for the
experimental evaluations. Four auxetic designs
were evaluated as listed in Table I. The cross-sec-
tional geometry of all the struts was designed as a
square. Design groups A and B had slight differ-
ences mainly due to strut thickness. Group A has a
strut thickness of 0.8 mm and group B has a strut
thickness of 0.9 mm. From Table I, it is apparent
that for both groups, design pairs 1,2 and 3,4
enables evaluations of the effect of both relative
Fig. 6. Ti6Al4 V samples via EBM.
Fig. 7. Surface sintering.
density and Poisson’s ratio on the mechanical
properties of the samples.
All the samples were designed to have 4 9 4 9 4
number of unit cell repetitions. The samples were
fabricated successfully with minimum dimensional
variations upon inspection. Figure 6 shows some of
the fabricated samples. It was also revealed upon
closer inspection that there exist multiple issues
that are closely related to the EBM process and the
realization of cellular structures.
As shown in Fig. 7a, due to the thermal dissipa-
tion during the fabrication process, the surface of
the parts fabricated via EBM and other powder-bed
fusion AM processes suffer from significant surface
sintering, which reduces the geometrical accuracy of
the structures and creates crack-initiation sites.
The surface roughness also affects the accurate de-
termination of effective strut dimensions. To obtain
a ‘‘mechanically equivalent dimension,’’ which could
be used in the mechanical property predictions in
the analytical model, the minimum fully solid-sec-
tional dimension was used as the dimension of the
struts as shown in Fig. 7.
Another issue was related to the realization of the
cellular designs. When the conceptual cellular
geometry as shown in Fig. 1b was realized by
fabrication, the thickness of the struts with the
actual structure resulted in an enlarged joint area
and shorter effective strut length as shown in Fig. 8.
To compensate for this, a corrective factor was
Fig. 8. Effective strut length.

Fig. 9. Comparison of modulus.
introduced to account for the reduction of effective
strut length DL as:
t prediction. The primary cause of inaccuracy was
DL ¼ (7)
2 sin h
Also, as all the cellular geometries were modeled
in SolidWorks (Dassault Systèmes, Waltham, MA),
finite-element simulations with the modeled struc-
tures were also carried out in COMSOL (COMSOL
Inc., Burlington, MA). Quasi-static elastic analyses
were performed; therefore, no special setting for the
meshing was used except to define the mesh that
was smaller than the thickness of the struts. Yield
was predicted by checking for the threshold stress
values, which spread through the entire thickness
of an arbitrary strut. After all the correction factors
were incorporated, the comparison between the
analytical model predictions, the finite-element
simulation, and the experimental results are shown
in Figs. 9 and 10.
In general, the simulation results agree very well
with the experimental results, which implies that
the material properties of the cellular structure are
consistent and predictable. The theory agrees very
well with the experiments in the z direction, while
significant discrepancies were observed in the x di-
rection. Further simulation-based analysis revealed
that the size effect of the re-entrant auxetic cellular
Yang, Harrysson, Cormier, West, Gong, and Stucker
Fig. 10. Comparison of strength.
structure is minimum, and therefore it did not
contribute to the significant error in the theoretical
speculated to be contributed by the higher-order
stress coupling effects due to the reduced degree of
symmetry in the structure when it was loaded in the
x direction. It was found via simulation that when
the re-entrant auxetic structure was loaded in the x
direction, the re-entrant struts were also subject to
torsional stress as a result of the compatibility
constraint between struts. As shown in Fig. 11, the
additional torsional stress tends to introduce addi-
tional deformation in the struts, and when the
deformation was restricted by the continuity
requirement of material at the joints, it could poten-
tially result in significant change of stress distribution
within the struts, thus contributing to the deviation of
the modulus and strength of the structures compared
to the model. Higher-order coupling effects could
complicate the unit cell modeling and reduce the ef-
ficiency of this approach, and further work is needed
to investigate this issue.
DISCUSSION
In the geometric modeling of this work, the
material properties of the cellular structures were
assumed to be homogeneous, which is a very rough
approximation. In fact, it has been known that AM
Additive Manufacturing of Metal Cellular Structures: Design and Fabrication
processes introduce intrinsic anisotropy into the
structure due to the layered process. In addition,
the energy input pattern during the fabrication
process could result in different microstructure
across the samples and thus potentially contribute
to the variation of material properties. Through
preliminary work with the selective laser melting
(SLM) process, it was found that the process control
could significantly affect the quality of the solid
struts.32 Overheating becomes more significant as
shown in Fig. 12, which could result in complete
failure of the features with certain sizes. In Fig. 12,
all three struts were fabricated with the same pro-
cess parameters and settings, and the scanning
path was designed to include a contour and a single-
line hatching. However, as the diameter of the laser
beam was around 0.1 mm, significant overheating
occurred with the 0.2 mm feature under the
designed scanning strategy, which resulted in the
deformation of the resulting feature as shown in
Fig. 13. As a conclusion, certain thin features might
Fig. 11. Torsional warping.
Fig. 12. Scanning path analysis for small feature sizes 0.1–0.3 mm.
Fig. 13. Thin features generated by SLM process.
not be readily manufacturable under certain process
settings, and a complete thermal-mechanical ana-
lysis is needed to fully characterize the potential
effect of dimensions and scanning strategies on the
quality of the parts.
In the design, it is often desired to treat the cellular
structures as a homogeneous continuum, which could
then be treated with traditional design analysis
techniques. The material matrix of a solid material
also includes shear modulus values; therefore, to
apply homogenization, the shear modulus also needs
to be derived for the cellular structures using a si-
milar approach as demonstrated in this article.
However, this approach faces significant challenges
in accounting for the boundary effects. First, actual
structures are often geometrically complex, which
would result in incomplete unit cells if conformal
modeling was not used. Incomplete unit cells do not
contribute to the structure in the same manner, and
therefore they could potentially affect the overall
performance of the structures. Second, at the
boundaries, the loss of structural symmetry also re-
sults in additional force and moment components,
which create a ‘‘weak spot’’ for the cellular structures.
Third, the semidiscontinuous solid phases in the
cellular structures could also create localized effects
under certain loading conditions. Therefore, it is still
impractical to apply the cellular unit modeling
approach to the lightweight design of actual struc-
tures, and more work is needed in this area to under-
stand the boundary issue. On the other hand, due to
the mathematical simplicity as demonstrated in this
work, the unit cell design could be easily incorporated
into other larger scale design models and optimization

methods, therefore opening up opportunities for ad-
vanced multiobjective structural design for light-
weight structures.
CONCLUSION
In this article, a hybrid approach that combines
analytical modeling, experimentation and simulation
was demonstrated for the design of 3D cellular
structures. A re-entrant auxetic cellular structure
was modeled, and the results showed good agreement
between the theories and the experiments when
structural symmetry is maximized. Additional mod-
eling work is needed when the symmetry breaks
down. In addition, manufacturing factors such as
energy input, scanning strategy, and defects are
closely coupled with the actual cellular design, which
will need to be incorporated into the geometric models
to enable more accurate designs. The results obtained
from this work still lack sufficient applicability with
actual structures; however, the demonstrated method-
ology could be further developed and expanded, which
has the mathematical advantage of being readily in-
corporated into other design tools.
REFERENCES
1. T. Catts, GE printing engine fuel nozzles propels $6 billion
market, Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-
11-12/ge-printing-engine-fuel-nozzles-propels-6-billion-mar
ket.html. Accessed 12 Nov 2013.
2. GE Reports, This electron gun builds jet engines, http://
www.gereports.com/post/94658699280/this-electron-gun-builds-
jet-engines. Accessed 17 Aug 2014.
3. B. Coxworth, World’s first 3d-printed titanium bicycle frame
could lead to cheaper, lighter bikes, Gizmag, http://www.giz
mag.com/3d-printed-titanium-bicycle-frame/30760/. Accessed
8 Feb 2014.
4. Y.-H. Lee and K.-J. Kang, Mater. Des. 30, 4434 (2009).
5. A.-J. Wang, R.S. Kumar, and D.L. McDowell, Mechan. Adv.
Mater. Struct. 12, 185 (2005).
6. V.S. Deshpande, N.A. Fleck, M.F. Ashby, and J. Mechan,
Phys. Solids 49, 1747 (2001).
Yang, Harrysson, Cormier, West, Gong, and Stucker
7. R. Hague, G. D’Costa, and P.M. Dickens, Rapid Prototyp. J.
7, 66 (2009).
8. O. Cansizoglu (Ph.D. dissertation, North Carolina State
University, 2008).
9. N.P. Fey, B.J. South, C.C. Seepersad and R.R. Neptune
(Paper presented at the 20th International Solid Freeform
Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, 2009).
10. P. Colombo and H.P. Degischer, Mater. Sci. Technol. 26,
1145 (2010).
11. L.J. Gibson and M.F. Ashby, Cellular Solids: Structure and
Properties, 2nd ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press,
1997).
12. R. Lakes, Nature 361, 511 (1993).
13. M.F. Ashby, N.A. Fleck, L.J. Gibson, J.W. Hutchinson, and
H.N.G. Wadley, Metal Forams: A Design Guide, 1st ed.
(Woburn: Butterworth Heinemann, 2000).
14. P. Colombo, Science 322, 381 (2008).
15. K.-J. Kang, Acta Mater. 57, 1865 (2009).
16. D. Ruan, G. Lu, F.L. Chen, and E. Siores, Compos. Struct.
57, 331 (2002).
17. K. Ushijima, D.-H. Chen, and H. Nisitani, Int. J. Mod. Phys.
B 22, 1730 (2008).
18. Y. Sugimura, J. Meyer, M.Y. He, H. Bart-Smith, J.
Grenstedt, and A.G. Evans, Acta Mater. 45, 5245 (1997).
19. A.G. Leach, J. Phys. D 26, 733 (1993).
20. F.A. Acosta, A.H. Castillejos, J.M. Almanza, and A. Flores,
Metall. Mater. Trans. B 26B, 159 (1995).
21. A. Ciftja, T.A. Engh, and M. Tangstad, Metall. Mater. Trans.
B 41B, 146 (2010).
22. B. Dabrowski, W. Swieszkowski, D. Godlinski, and K.J.
Kurzydlowski, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B 95, 53 (2010).
23. L.F. Cooper, J. Prosthet. Dent. 84, 522 (2000).
24. S. Hansson and M. Norton, J. Biomechan. 32, 829 (1999).
25. R.G. Hutchinson, N.A. Fleck, and J. Mechan, Phys. Solids
54, 756 (2006).
26. H. Chen, Q. Zheng, L. Zhao, Y. Zhang, and H. Fan, Compos.
Struct. 94, 3448 (2012).
27. R. Lakes, Science 235, 1038 (1987).
28. M. Bianchi and F.L. Scarpa, J. Mater. Sci. 43, 5851 (2008).
29. L. Yang, O. Harrysson, D. Cormier, and H. West, Acta
Mater. 60, 3370 (2012).
30. L. Yang, O. Harrysson, D. Cormier, and H. West, J. Mater.
Sci. 48, 1413 (2012).
31. P.R. Onck, E.W. Andrews, and L.J. Gibson, Int. J. Mech. Sci.
43, 681 (2001).
32. L. Yang, H. Gong, S. Dilip, and B. Stucker (Paper presented
at the 25th Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin,
TX, 2014).