Virtual and Physical Prototyping

ISSN: 1745-2759 (Print) 1745-2767 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nvpp20

Compressive properties of 3D printed auxetic

structures: experimental and numerical studies

Amer Alomarah, Syed H. Masood, Igor Sbarski, Batool Faisal, Zhanyuan Gao
& Dong Ruan

To cite this article: Amer Alomarah, Syed H. Masood, Igor Sbarski, Batool Faisal, Zhanyuan Gao
& Dong Ruan (2019): Compressive properties of 3D printed auxetic structures: experimental and
numerical studies, Virtual and Physical Prototyping, DOI: 10.1080/17452759.2019.1644184

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2019.1644184

Published online: 23 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nvpp20
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING
https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2019.1644184

Compressive properties of 3D printed auxetic structures: experimental and

numerical studies
a,b
Amer Alomarah , Syed H. Masooda, Igor Sbarskia, Batool Faisalb, Zhanyuan Gaoc and Dong Ruan a

a
Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia; bMechanical engineering
department, Faculty of Engineering, Wasit University, Al-Kut, Iraq; cTianjin Key Laboratory of Civil Structure Protection and Reinforcement,
Tianjin Chengjian University, People’s Republic of China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Metamaterials that exhibit negative Poisson’s ratio (NPR) are known as auxetics. They laterally Received 2 May 2019
expand or contract when they are axially tensioned or compressed. A re–entrant chiral auxetic Accepted 12 July 2019
structure (RCA) is a recently developed structure, which combines the topological features of re–
KEYWORDS
entrant and chiral honeycombs. Comparative study between the RCA structure and popular Auxetic; energy absorption;
benchmarks subjected to uniaxial compression has been conducted experimentally and in–plane compression; Multi
numerically. Specimens have been fabricated from polyamide12 (PA12) using Multi Jet Fusion Jet Fusion (MJF); negative
(MJF). Numerical models have been developed using ABAQUS/Explicit and verified by the Poisson’s ratio; re–entrant
experiments. The experimental measurements manifest the high accuracy of the MJF process to chiral auxetic (RCA) structure
produce robust components with precise details. It has been found that the RCA structure
outperforms the other types of honeycombs in terms of strength and specific energy absorption
when loaded in the Y direction, while only the tetrachiral honeycomb surpasses the RCA
structure in terms of specific energy absorption when loaded in the X direction. The auxeticity
(NPR) of the RCA structure compressed in the Y direction was larger than that of the other
honeycombs. Numerical models have been employed to study the effects of friction and the
number of cells on the mechanical response of the RCA structure.

1. Introduction
Cellular structures have attracted great attention and
been increasingly used in various applications due to
their lightweight and good mechanical properties
(Gibson and Ashby 1997; Funkel et al. 2019; Shen, Lu,
and Ruan 2010). Ongoing developments in cellular struc-
tures have led to more novel auxetic structures. The term
‘auxetic’ was introduced in 1991 for the first time (Evans
1991). The novelty of auxetic structures comes from
their topological features, which display counterintuitive
response to the applied load. Auxetic structures contract
laterally when compressed and expand laterally when
stretched, exhibiting negative Poisson’s ratio (NPR) (Li,
Dong, and Lakes 2013). In fact, the auxetic effect have
led to special properties including better indentation
resistance, shear modulus, fracture toughness, variable
permeability and energy absorption (Choi and Lakes
1996; Assidi and Ganghoffer 2012; Alderson et al. 2001).
These attractive properties have offered various appli-
cations of auxetic structures such as cores for sandwich
panels (Imbalzano et al. 2017), smart filters (Alderson
et al. 2000), mechanical absorbers (Bezazi and Scarpa
2007), sound absorbers (Scarpa, Bullough, and Lumley
2004), magnetics (Abramovitch et al. 2010) and medical
industries (Wang et al. 2016; Yang, Vora, and Chang
2018). The auxetic behaviour improves the mechanical
properties especially the energy absorption of structures.
The reasons are that when an auxetic structure is com-
pressed axially, it contracts laterally and becomes more
compact resulting in higher stress and greater specific
energy absorption (Alomarah et al. 2019). Researchers
have paid great attentions to the mechanical properties
of auxetic structures. Mechanical properties of the re–
entrant and the conventional hexagonal honeycombs
have been examined and compared (Hou, Deng, and
Zhang 2016; Liu et al. 2016). Results revealed that due to
the auxetic effect, the re–entrant honeycomb exhibited
a higher ability to absorb energy than the hexagonal hon-
eycomb. A new auxetic structure was proposed, which
combined the topological features of the star–shaped
and the re–entrant honeycombs (RSH) (Wang et al.
2019). The energy absorption and the auxeticity of the
proposed structure were improved compared with tra-
ditional re–entrant honeycomb. Quasi-static and fatigue

CONTACT Dong Ruan druan@swin.edu.au Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC 3122,
Australia
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. ALOMARAH ET AL.
properties of auxetic and conventional thermoplastic PU
foams were investigated (Bezazi and Scarpa 2009). Find-
ings confirmed better mechanical resilience and signifi-
cant energy absorption capability.
Different auxetic structures have been reported such
as re–entrant honeycomb (Evans, Alderson, and Christian
1995; Alomarah et al. 2017), rotating rigid or semi–rigid
units (Grima and Evans 2000; Grima, Alderson, and
Evans 2014), star–shaped (Grima et al. 2005), double
arrowhead honeycombs (Qiao and Chen 2015), and
chiral honeycombs (Prall and Lakes 1997). Recently, a
new auxetic structure named re–entrant chiral auxetic
(RCA) structure has been proposed, which incorporated
the chiral features in a re-entrant honeycomb (Alomarah,
Ruan, and Masood 2018a, 2018b). Since the RCA unit cell
combines the topological features of both chiral and re-
entrant honeycombs, the auxetic behaviour of the RCA
structure comes from both factors. Firstly, the re–
entrant feature leads to the inward or outward move-
ments of the inclined walls when they are compressed
or tensioned, respectively. Secondly, the chiral features
results in wrapping and unwrapping of ligaments
around the rotated cylinders. Our previous work (Alo-
marah et al. 2018b) studied both the RCA structure and
the re–entrant honeycomb with similar geometrical par-
ameters subjected to quasi–static tensile loading. Results
showed that the RCA structure outperformed the re–
entrant honeycomb in terms of stress and auxetic behav-
iour in the X direction. These interesting properties trig-
gered the current investigation of the compressive
properties (stress–strain curves, energy absorption and
auxetic behaviour) of the RCA structure.
In this study, the compressive properties of the RCA
structure and three common auxetic honeycombs: re–
entrant, tetrachiral and anti–tetrachiral, have been inves-
tigated and compared. Uniaxial quasi–static compressive
tests have been carried out in two in–plane directions (X
and Y) for non–symmetric structures (RCA and re–
entrant), and in one in–plane direction for the symmetric
structures (tetrachiral and anti–tetrachiral). Finite
element (FE) models have also been developed using
ABAQUS/Explicit and verified by the experimental data.
The aims of the current study are to investigate the
mechanical response of the RCA structure and compare
it with that of other popular auxetic honeycombs
reported in the literature.
2. Experiments
2.1. Specimens geometry
The unit cell of the re–entrant chiral auxetic (RCA) struc-
ture has been designed based on the geometries of re–
entrant and chiral honeycombs (Alomarah, Ruan, and
Masood 2018a, 2018b). Therefore, re–entrant, tetrachiral
and anti–tetrachiral honeycombs have also been investi-
gated in this study for comparison. A 2D sketch and 3D
CAD model of the RCA structure, re–entrant honeycomb,
tetrachiral honeycomb and anti–tetrachiral honeycomb
are depicted in Figure 1(a–h), respectively. In RCA unit
cells (Figure 1(a)), H, L₁ and L₂ denote the lengths of ver-
tical, inclined and horizontal walls respectively, while r is
the outer radius of cylinders. The inclination angle
between the vertical (H ) walls and the inclined (L₁)
walls is θ₀. For re-entrant honeycombs, H, L₁, θ₀ and t₁
are vertical wall length, inclined wall length, inclination
angle and wall thickness, respectively. For tetrachiral
and anti–tetrachiral honeycombs, H, r and t₁ are wall
length, cylinder radius and wall thickness, respectively.
All walls and cylinders are designed to have the same
in–plane (t₁) and out–of–plane (t₂) thicknesses. From
Figure 1, it is clear that the connections between walls
and cylinders of the RCA structure are the same as that
for the chiral honeycomb (red walls) and the anti–chiral
honeycomb (green walls). For comparison, all four
types of specimens have identical global in–plane
(80 mm × 64 mm) and out–of–plane (t₂=30 mm) dimen-
sions. The dimensions of designed unit cells and global
dimensions of specimens are listed in Table 1.
2.2. Additively manufactured specimens
A 3D printing process, Multi Jet Fusion (MJF), was used
to fabricate the experimental specimens. MJF is an addi-
tive manufacturing technique through which physical
components are fabricated layer–by–layer. HP Jet
Fusion 3D 4200 Printer was employed to print the
experimental specimens of each type from polyamide
12 (HP PA12). This 3D printing process begins with
spreading a thin layer of material powder onto a build
platform of the printer. A thermally reactive black ink
(contains fusing agents) is jetted on the powder bed
where the particles are meant to fuse together. Accurate
details and high resolution are achieved by applying
non–thermally reactive ink (contains detailing agents)
around the contour of the component. Subsequently,
the entire layer of powder bed is heated using infrared
lamps whose heat distributes evenly. The thermal reac-
tion between the fusing agent and material powder
causes the powder to be selectively fused. More
detailed description of 3D printing using MJF technique
can be found in (Alomarah et al. 2019). Four RCA speci-
mens, four re–entrant specimens, two tetrachiral speci-
mens and two anti-tetrachiral specimens were printed.
Figure 2 shows isometric and front views of the
printed specimens of each type.
 VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 3

Figure 1 . Topologies of different cellular auxetic structures investigated in this study: 2D sketches of (a) RCA structure; (b) re–entrant
honeycomb; (c) tetrachiral honeycomb; (d) anti–tetrachiral honeycomb; 3D CAD models of (e) RCA structure; (f) re–entrant honeycomb;
(g) tetrachiral honeycomb; (h) anti–tetrachiral honeycomb.

After printing, an air jet cleaning was employed to 2.3. Experimental testing
remove all loose powder (non–fused PA12 powder). A
2.3.1. Properties of the parent material
digital vernier caliper was then used to measure the
In order to investigate the properties of the parent
dimensions of the unit cells and the global dimensions
material (HP PA12), four tensile samples (type IV) were
of the printed specimens. Four random locations were
printed and tested according to ASTM standards D638
chosen on each specimen and an average value was
(A Standard 2014). Figure 4(a) shows CAD model of a
taken as the dimension. The measured dimensions of
tensile sample with the key dimensions illustrated. It
the printed specimens were found to be the same as
should be mentioned that the four samples were
those designed ones quoted in Table 1, indicating high
printed with a thickness of 3.4 mm. The effect of building
accuracy and capability of the MJF process. Moreover,
(layer up) direction of the printed parts using MJF
to further examine the dimensions of the printed speci-
process was experimentally investigated (O’Connor,
mens before testing, an optical stereomicroscope (Leica
Dickson, and Dowling 2018) and the results showed
MZ6) was used. Figure 3 depicts the measured dimen-
that mechanical properties varied slightly (less than 8%
sions of the unit cells of the re–entrant honeycomb
and 4% for the tensile modulus and tensile strength,
and the RCA structure, which confirmed the measure-
respectively) in the three (X, Y and Z) directions. There-
ments made by the vernier caliper. The masses of the
fore, the properties of the parent material were regarded
printed specimens were measured using a digital scale.
as isotropic and tensile samples were printed in one
The density of each specimen was calculated by dividing
direction only. Quasi–static tensile tests were carried
the measured mass by the volume, 80 × 64 × 30 mm³.
out at 0.05 mm/s using a Zwick/Z010 machine. The
The densities of the printed specimens were 280, 300,
quasi–static engineering stress (s) was calculated as
240 and 240 kg/m³ for the RCA, re–entrant, tetrachiral
the ratio of the measured instantaneous force (F ) over
and anti–tetrachiral, respectively.

Table 1. Dimensions of cells and global dimensions of specimens (Note: letters X and Y denote loading directions)
Unit cells Specimens
Structures H (mm) L₁ (mm) L₂ (mm) θ (°) r (mm) t1 (mm) t2 (mm) X (mm) Y (mm)
RCA-X 8 4.5 4.5 50 1.5 0.8 30 64 80
RCA-Y 8 4.5 4.5 50 1.5 0.8 30 80 64
Re-entrant-X 8 4.5 — 50 — 0.8 30 64 80
Re-entrant-Y 8 4.5 — 50 — 0.8 30 80 64
Tetrachiral 8 — — —- 1.5 0.8 30 64 80
Anti-tetrachiral 8 — — —- 1.5 0.8 30 64 80
4 A. ALOMARAH ET AL.

Figure 2. 3D printed auxetic specimens from (HP PA12) using MJF process: isometric view of (a) RCA structure; (b) re–entrant honey-
comb; (c) tetrachiral honeycomb; (d) anti–tetrachiral honeycomb; front view of (e) RCA structure; (f) re–entrant honeycomb; (g) tetra-
chiral honeycomb; (h) anti–tetrachiral honeycomb.

the original cross–sectional area of the tensile samples
(3.4 × 6 mm2). While engineering strain was calculated
as the ratio of the instantaneous displacement over the
original gauge length (25 mm). The true stress and true
strain were calculated using Equations (1) and (2),
respectively. Figure 4(b) shows the corresponding true
stress–strain curves of the four repeated tests. It can be
seen that all tested samples manifest similar flow
stress. The average values of the measured elastic prop-
erties obtained from the four tensile tests and the value
of Poisson’s ratio (Habib et al. 2017) are summarised in
Table 2. After the elastic regime where material starts
to yield (σ = 38 MPa), the material behaviour of PA 12
can be describe as strain hardening. From Figure 4(b),
a remarkable increase of the stress in the plateau
regime was observed to reach the maximum value (σ
= 56.2 MPa) at approximately 0.12 axial strain. Afterward,
the stress keep consistent up to the necking in the all
tensile samples but sample 4. This might be due to
defects in this sample. The average values of the calcu-
lated plastic properties up to the strain of the
maximum tensile strength of the four tensile samples
are summarised in Table 2. The calculated material prop-
erties (elastic and plastic) were used in the finite element

Figure 3. Optical photographs showing the measured dimensions of geometrical parameters of an untested: (a) re–entrant specimen;
(b) RCA specimen.

Figure 4. (a) A CAD model of a tensile sample (ASTM D638); (b)
quasi–static true stress–strain curves of the parent material HP
PA12 of four tensile samples manufactured by Multi Jet Fusion
(MJF).
(FE) models to describe material behaviour of PA 12.
strue = sengineering × (1 + 1engineering )
1true = ln(1 + 1engineering )
where s and 1 are stress and strain, respectively.
2.3.2. Quasi-static compressive tests of auxetic
structures
The mechanical performance of auxetic specimens was
tested using a Zwick Roell machine (Zwick/Z010)
equipped with a load cell of 10 kN. Figure 5 shows
the experimental setup of an anti–tetrachiral specimen.
To study the effect of loading direction on the mechan-
ical performance, uniaxial quasi–static compressive tests
were carried out in the two in–plane directions (X and Y)
for the non–symmetric structures (RCA and re–entrant),
while in one in–plane direction for the symmetric struc-
tures (tetrachiral and anti–tetrachiral). Two repeated
tests were conducted under each loading condition.
The tests were performed by placing the specimen on
the fixed platen of the testing machine while a velocity
was applied to the top (movable) platen, which tra-
velled downward at a constant speed of 0.066 mm/s.
All tests were terminated once densification began. To
calculate the successive increments of the displace-
ments, a set of ten white markers were painted in the
Table 2. Mechanical properties of HP PA12 material (average of four tensile tests).
Elastic properties
Young’s modulus Poisson’s Ratio (Habib et al.
Test number (GPa) 2017)
Average 1.3 0.33
Average plastic properties (stress versus plastic strain)
Plastic strain 0.00 0.05
Plastic stress 38 40
(MPa)
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 5
central region of each specimen as depicted in Figure
5. The nominal strain was defined to be ɛ = δ/V, where
δ is the change in displacement between the machine
platens, and V is the original height of the specimen.
While the nominal stress was defined as s = F/(B × t₂),
where B and t₂ (not shown) are the width and out-of-
plane thickness of the compressed specimen. The
instantaneous time, displacement, force and Young’s
modulus of the compressed specimens were automati-
cally recorded by the computer connected to the
machine.
3. Finite element analysis (FEA)
Finite element (FE) models were developed using
ABAQUS/Explicit package to simulate the behaviour of
the specimens under quasi–static compression. It is
(1) very time–consuming to numerically simulate a case
with a loading velocity of 0.066 mm/s. Therefore, a
(2) higher velocity, 100 mm/s, was used in the current simu-
lation. Preliminary simulation indicated that the simu-
lation results were not sensitive to loading velocity
below 100 mm/s as shown in Figure 6(a). The dimensions
of the FE models were designed to be identical to those
of the experimental specimens listed in Table 1. Standard
shell elements (S4R) with four–node reduced integration
were adopted. To determine proper element size and
eliminate mesh sensitivity, four levels of element size:
0.5, 1, 2 and 4 mm, were employed to mesh the anti–tet-
rachiral honeycomb as an example. The stress–strain
curves are shown in Figure 6(b). The FE results of
element sizes 0.5 and 1 mm were similar in the elastic
regime and displayed a discrepancy of less than 10%
until 0.34 axial strain, demonstrating converged sol-
utions. Therefore, the current FE models were estab-
lished using element size of 1 mm. A strain hardening
material model was used and the true stress–strain
curve (Test-1) shown in Figure 4 was input into
ABAQUS/Explicit as material properties. A constant vel-
ocity of 100 mm/s was assigned to the top (movable)
platen, whilst all the translational and rotational free-
doms of the bottom platen were constrained (i.e. fixed)
as shown in Figure 6 (c) and (d). To match with the
0.2% offset yield strength Density (kg/
(MPa) m³)
38 1000
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12
44 48 51.6 52.8 55 55.8 56.2
6 A. ALOMARAH ET AL.

Figure 5. (a) A photograph of an anti–tetrachiral specimen before testing showing the ten markers which were used to determine the
axial and lateral displacements; (b) a photograph of the crushed anti–tetrachiral specimen.

experimental tests, ten markers were also selected in the
central region to calculate the axial and the lateral displa-
cements. To avoid any possible penetration, a general
contact algorithm for ABAQUS/Explicit was defined to
simulate the interaction between walls of a specimen
as well as the contact between the specimen and the
top and bottom platens. Friction coefficient was
estimated by a tilted plane test (Ma, Guo, and Lu 2012)
and found to be 0.25, which was utilised in FE models.
It should be mentioned that the fracture was not con-
sidered in the current simulations.
The validation of the current FE models was con-
ducted by comparing the simulated deformation
modes, stress–strain curves and Poisson’s ratios with

Figure 6. (a) Comparison between the experimental and FE stress strain curves of anti–tetrachiral honeycomb using different velocities;
(b) mesh convergence test of FE model for anti–tetrachiral honeycomb using different elements sizes; (c) FE model of an anti–tetrachiral
honeycomb; (d) crushed FE specimen by moving the top platen toward the bottom (fixed) platen.
 VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 7

the corresponding experimental results and shown later
in Sections 4.1 and 4.2.
4. Results and discussions
4.1. Deformation modes and mechanical
responses
4.1.1. Re–entrant chiral auxetic (RCA) structure
The experimental and the FE deformation mode and the
stress–strain curves of the RCA specimen compressed in
the X direction are depicted in Figure 7(a–c), respectively,
while Figure 7(d) shows a unit cell (non–deformed and
when the L₂ walls touched each other) allocated in the
central region of the FE model. Images were captured
from the recorded videos during testing. It is clear that
deformed specimen contracted laterally (resulting in
NPR) as illustrated by the measured displacements
between the markers as shown in Figure 7(a1-a3). FE
models revealed resemble deformation pattern as
shown in Figure 7(b). Initially, the inclined walls (L₁)
were subjected to bending while the (L₂) walls were sub-
jected to an axial loading. The compressive loading
caused an inward movement of the inclined walls (L₁)
leading to a lateral contraction of cells. This deformation
mode revealed a linear relation of the stress with the
strain up to ɛ = 0.04. Yield strain (1y ) was used to identify
the end of the elastic regime at which the stress slope
started to decrease. The end of the plateau regime was
identified by the intersection point of the tangents to
the stress plateau regime and the densification regime
(Chan and Xie 2003). The values of 1y and the end of
the plateau regime for only the first specimen are
shown. Young’s modulus was recorded by the testing
machine from the slope (the ratio of the stress over the
strain) in the limit 1% of nominal strain (Olurin, Fleck,
and Ashby 2000). The recorded (experimental) and the
calculated (FE) values of Young’s modulus are listed in
Table 3. The lateral contraction of the deformed speci-
men continued until the (L₂) walls touched each other

Figure 7. Results of the RCA specimen compressed in the X direction: (a) photographs taken in the test; (b) simulated deformation; (c)
experimental measured and FE simulated stress–strain curves; (d) simulated unit cell located in the central region of the specimen (1-
non–deformed, δ = 0 mm; 2- when L₂ walls touched each other δ = 8 mm).
8 A. ALOMARAH ET AL.
(δ = 8) indicating the maximum lateral contraction
(Figure 7(a3) and (b3)). At this point, the inclined walls
(L₁) experienced severe bending. Therefore, the stress
decreased from 1 MPa (specimen–1) and 1.3 MPa (simu-
lated) to 0.8 MPa (specimen–1) and 0.9 MPa (simulated).
Due to friction between the contacted surfaces, the
movement of cells at the distal ends of the specimen
were restricted and less than that of other cells leading
to in–plane buckling of the specimen. It can be seen
that localised layer collapse occurred in the middle of
the specimen (within the yellow rectangle shown in
Figure 7(a4)). All collapsed layers then touched each
other, indicating the start of densification regime. From
Figure 7(d1), it can be seen that short arm of the
bending moment (ABM) of the inclined walls (L₁) required
more force for further deformation. With further loading,
the ABM of the inclined walls (L₁) increased (Figure 7(d2))
(i.e. less force was required for further deformation). The
effects of both the ABM and the in–plane buckling of the
specimen, led to softening (reduced plateau stress).
Moreover, Figure 7(d) manifests the details of rotation
of cylinders. Cylinders having chiral topology (cylinders
are on the opposite sides of a wall) rotated in the same
direction. In contrast, cylinders having anti–chiral top-
ology (cylinders are on the same side of a wall) rotated
in the opposite directions. The in–plane rotation of cylin-
ders prompted additional lateral contraction of cells.
Figure 8 is similar to Figure 7 except that the speci-
mens were compressed in the Y direction. The com-
pressed specimen contracted uniformly in both the
axial and lateral directions. At the beginning, the inclined
walls (L₁) were subjected to bending while the (H ) walls
were subjected to axial loading. The end of the elastic
regime was defined as the point in the stress–strain
curve at which the slope or stress changed. From Table
3 it can be seen that the RCA structure displayed rela-
tively small Young’s modulus when it compressed in
the Y direction. The inferior elastic properties could be
attributed to the long ABM shown in Figure 8(d1) com-
pared with that in the case of X direction loading. After-
wards, when the (L₂) walls touched each other, the (H )
walls are subjected to large axial force. The reduced
length of the ABM (Figure 8(d2)) and the large axial
force carried by (H ) walls led to a sharp increase of the
stress from 0.2 MPa (specimen–1 and simulated) at 0.18
axial strain to approximately 1.5 MPa at 0.26 axial
strain. Because the (H ) walls were aligned in the
loading direction, they yielded first and plastically
deformed leading to a significant decrease of the
stress. Subsequently, the stress redistributed to the
remaining walls in the same layer causing collapse of
all (H ) walls in the entire layer (within the yellow oval
shown in Figure 8(a4)). This deformation progressed
toward the proximal layers. The sequential collapse of
the (H ) walls produced large fluctuated plateau stress.
Finally, the stress increased sharply indicating the den-
sification. It is worth noting that the rotation of cylinders
induced tension to the (L₂) walls, which experienced
great stress (Figure 8(d2)).
4.1.2. Re–entrant honeycomb
The experimentally measured and the FE simulated
deformation mode and the stress–strain curves of the
re–entrant specimen compressed in the X direction are
depicted in Figure 9(a–c), respectively, while a unit cell
before deformation and at a displacement of δ =
5.12 mm (just before the in–plane buckling) located in
the central region of the FE model is shown in Figure 9
(d). The lateral contraction of the compressed specimen
came only from the inward movement of the inclined
walls (L₁). Cells are deformed elastically and uniformly
as shown in Figure 9(a2). The stress of both experiment
and FE firstly increased linearly with strain in the elastic
regime and then increased nonlinearly and monolithi-
cally from 0.65 MPa to approximately 1.8 MPa (exper-
iments) and 2.15 MPa (FE) at the end of the plateau
regime. Both experimentally tested specimens displayed
similar values of Young’s modulus while it was slightly
smaller in the case of FE (Table 3). Subsequently, in–
plane buckling occurred early (Figure 9(a3)). The in–
plane buckling could be the main reason that caused a
discrepancy between plateau stresses (in the range
0.12–0.32 axial strain) of the experimental specimens.
With the progress of the deformation, the inclined
walls (L₁) bent. A diagonal localised deformation band
(within the orange rectangle shown in Figure 9(a4))
was observed. Such deformation pattern remained
until the whole specimen was fully compressed. From
Figure 9(d), it can be observed that the deformation of
the (H ) walls was limited and stress concentration was
present at the intersections where the inclined walls
joined other walls.
One has to bear in mind that the average compressive
strength (0.67 MPa) of the re–entrant specimens in the
plateau regime was smaller compared with that
(0.9 MPa) of the RCA specimens (X direction). This vari-
ation could be due to two possible reasons. Firstly, in
the case of re–entrant specimens, there were no walls
aligned in the loading direction, while in the case of
RCA specimens the (L₂) walls were subjected to an axial
loading. Secondly, it has been observed in our previous
experiments (Alomarah et al. 2018b) that the effective
length of the inclined walls (L₁) of the re–entrant unit
cell (hence the ABM) was longer than that of the RCA
(when they are designed to have similar dimensions).
 VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 9

Figure 8. Results of the RCA specimen compressed in the Y direction: (a) photographs taken in the test; (b) simulated deformation; (c)
experimental measured and FE simulated stress–strain curves; (d) simulated unit cell located in the central region of the specimen (1-
non–deformed, δ = 0 mm; 2- when L₂ walls touched each other δ = 8 mm).

Figure 10 is similar to Figure 9 except that the speci-
men was compressed in the Y direction. The inclined
walls (L₁) and the (H ) walls were subjected to both
bending moment and axial compression simultaneously.
Corresponding to the stress in the elastic regime,
Young’s modulus varied between the first and second
specimens (Table 3). With further loading, critical walls
plastically buckled leading to collapse of the entire
layer (within the orange oval shown in Figure 10(a4)).
Subsequently, the specimen deformed layer by layer,
resulting in fluctuated stress in the plateau regime,
until the whole layers touched each other indicating
densification, which was similar to the deformation
mode of the RCA specimens (Y direction).
The fluctuation of plateau stress (Figure 10(c)) was
much smaller than that observed in the RCA specimens

Table 3. Young’s modulus (E) of the compressed specimens (Notes: letters S-1 and S-2 denote specimens No 1 and 2 respectively; X, and
Y are the loading directions).
Structure
Young’s modulus Type of test RCA-X RCA-Y Re-entrant -X Re-entrant -Y Tetra. Anti-tetra.
E (MPa) S-1 9.2 1.1 9.7 7.6 22 8.6
S-2 9.5 1.7 9.7 6.5 20 9.3
FEA 8 1.05 8 7.6 21 8.3
10 A. ALOMARAH ET AL.

Figure 9. Results of the re–entrant specimen compressed in the X direction: (a) photographs taken in the test; (b) simulated defor-
mation; (c) experimental measured and FE simulated stress–strain curves; (d) simulated unit cell located in the central region of the
specimen (1-non–deformed, δ = 0 mm; 2- at 0.08 axial strain, δ = 5.12 mm).

compressed in the Y direction (Figure 8(c)). The number
of the (H ) walls in a unit cell is the main reason for this
variation. In the case of the RCA unit cell, the number
of the (H ) walls (four) is double that of re–entrant unit
cell. Therefore, the RCA specimen could withstand
large axial loading before buckling (Figure 8(c)). From
the FE photographs shown in Figure 10(d2), it is clear
that the stress in inclined walls is large (at a certain
strain, ɛ = 0.08).
4.1.3. Chiral and anti-chiral honeycombs
The chiral and anti-chiral specimens were loaded in only
one direction due to their symmetric topology (i.e. the
properties will be the same in both in-plane directions).
The experimental measured and the FE simulated defor-
mation modes and the stress–strain curves of the tetra-
chiral specimen are depicted in Figure 11(a–c),
respectively. While Figure 11(d) shows the FE model of
a unit cell (un–deformed and at δ = 4 mm). Walls
almost aligned in the loading direction are subjected
to axial compressive loading and bent (due to the
rotation of cylinders). The deformed specimen revealed
a small elastic regime with high strength. Therefore, tet-
rachiral honeycomb showed the largest values of
Young’s modulus as listed in Table 3. When a critical
stress in the walls aligned in the loading direction was
reached, cells started to deform plastically. Figure 11(a)
shows the plastic bending of the walls in the bottom
layer. Subsequently, the specimen deformed layer by
layer (within the orange rectangle shown in Figure 11
(a2)). When a certain layer started to deform (Figure 11
(a) and (b)), the force started to increase (Figure 11(c)).
The subsequent deformation localised in this layer and
the deformation in other layers was not evident. Only
 VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 11

Figure 10. Results of the re–entrant specimen compressed in the Y direction: (a) photographs taken in the test; (b) simulated defor-
mation; (c) experimental measured and FE simulated stress–strain curves; (d) simulated unit cell located in the central region of the
specimen (1-non–deformed, δ = 0 mm; 2- at 0.08 axial strain, δ = 5.12 mm).

when this deformed layer was completely crushed, the
neighbouring layer started to deform and the force
started to drop. The layer by layer crushing resulted in
oscillation in the stress–strain curve. The crushing of
one layer of cells corresponds to one period (trough –
peak – trough) of the stress–strain curve (Figure 11(c)).
A small lateral contraction was observed as illustrated
by the measured dimensions in Figure 11(a). This defor-
mation pattern continued until all layers completely
crushed forming densification. It should be noticed that
after the elastic regime, the experimental deformation
of each layer produced almost identical stress slope to
that in the case of the elastic regime. However, the FE
stress in the plateau regime was not resemble but the
average value was in good agreement with that of the
experiments. The compressive load induced an in–
plane rotation of cylinders which rotated in the same
direction (Figure 11(d2)) and resulted in a full–wave or
S–shaped deformation of walls.
The deformation pattern of the anti–tetrachiral speci-
men and the corresponding stress– strain curves are
shown in Figure 12(a) and (b), respectively. In the
elastic regime, the compressed specimens revealed
different values of Young’s modulus. The movement of
the cells at the distal ends was restricted due to friction
and was less than that in the middle of the specimen
(within the orange rectangle shown in Figure 12(a4)). A
sudden decrease of the stress (specimen–1) was
observed at 0.43 axial strain, which might be due to frac-
ture of some walls aligned in the loading direction.
Reviewing a unit cell in the FE model, it can be seen
that the adjacent cylinders were rotating in the opposite
12 A. ALOMARAH ET AL.
Figure 11. Results of the compressed tetrachiral specimen: (a) photographs taken in the tests; (b) simulated deformation; (c) exper-
imental measured and FE simulated stress–strain curves; (d) simulated unit cell (1-non–deformed, δ = 0 mm; (2) at 0.062 axial
strain, δ = 4 mm).
directions leading to a half–wave or C–shaped defor-
mation of walls (Figure 12(d2)). This caused the auxetic
property of the compressed specimens. Moreover,
walls aligned in the loading direction were simul-
taneously subjected to a relatively large axial compres-
sive load and bending (coming from the rotation of
cylinders), while walls aligned perpendicularly to the
loading direction were subjected to bending moment
predominantly.
4.2. Poisson’s ratio
4.2.1. Calculation method
Poisson’s ratio is an important material property, which is
the negative of the ratio of the lateral strain to the axial
strain. The history of Poisson’s ratio of the tested speci-
mens is one of the main interests of this study. Therefore,
the Poisson’s ratio of the RCA structure was measured
and compared with that of the other auxetic honey-
combs. The deformation of specimens in all compressive
tests were captured and recorded using a digital canon
camera (Canon EOS 650D). A series of images (frames)
of a deformed specimen were then captured. The instan-
taneous change in the axial and lateral displacements of
the traced markers was calculated using Matlab software.
The average displacement between the top and the
bottom rows of the markers was taken as an axial displa-
cement. While the average displacement between the
left and the right rows of the markers was taken as a
lateral displacement. The true axial and lateral strains
were calculated accordingly in which at each image (i),
the preceded image (i-1) was used as a reference. Pois-
son’s ratio was calculated using Equation (3). Poisson’s
ratios were calculated up to 0.125 axial strain for all the

Figure 12. Results of the compressed anti–tetrachiral specimen: (a) photographs taken in the test; (b) simulated deformation; (c) exper-
imental measured and FE simulated stress–strain curves; (d) simulated unit cell (1-non–deformed, δ = 0 mm; (2) at 0.062 axial strain,
δ=4 mm).
deformed specimens except for re-entrant honeycomb
loaded in the X direction due to an in–plane buckling
shown in Figure 9. It is very challenging to trace the
markers after buckling. Therefore, the Poisson’s ratio
beyond buckling was not calculated.
1 true lateral
yxy = −
1 true axial
where yxy and 1 are Poisson’s ratio and strain,
respectively.
4.2.2. Poisson’s ratios of the tested specimens
Figure 13 shows the experimental and simulated Pois-
son’s ratios versus the axial engineering strain. Poisson’s
ratios of the RCA specimens compressed in the X and Y
directions are shown in Figure 13(a) and (b), respectively.
The auxetic property (i.e. NPR) of the RCA structure came
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 13
from rotation of the cylinders and in ward movements of
the inclined walls (L₁). When the RCA specimens were
compressed in the X direction, they exhibited large nega-
tive Poisson’s ratio: −2.4 (experimental) and −2.6 (simu-
lated) at the beginning and then increased gradually to
approximately −2. Afterward, Poisson’s ratio increased
(3) sharply to approximately −0.6 at 10% axial strain. This
behaviour agreed with the deformation mode observed
in Figure 7(a) and (b) in which the lateral contraction of
the compressed specimens was significantly restricted
when the (L₂) walls touched each other. Subsequently,
Poisson’s ratio continued to increase, but at a much
smaller rate. Poisson’s ratio remained negative in the
whole compressive process. On the other hand, for the
RCA specimens compressed in the Y direction, the Pois-
son’s ratio was relatively small and remained constant
approximately −1.1.
14 A. ALOMARAH ET AL.

Figure 13. Experimental and FE Poisson’s ratios of (a) RCA structure compressed in the X direction; (b) RCA structure compressed in the
Y direction; (c) re–entrant honeycomb compressed in the X direction; (d) re–entrant honeycomb compressed in the Y direction; (e)
tetrachiral honeycomb; (f) anti–tetrachiral honeycomb.

Figure 13 (c) and (d) show the Poisson’s ratios of re–
entrant honeycomb specimens when they were com-
pressed in the X and Y directions, respectively. It is
known that the re-entrant honeycomb displays large
auxetic effect (i.e. large NPR) when it is compressed in
the Y direction (Yang et al. 2015). As stated in Section
4.1.2, the lateral contraction of the re–entrant honey-
comb came only from the inward movement of the
inclined walls (L₁). Therefore, Poisson’s ratios were
expected to be smaller compared with those for the
RCA specimens. In the case of compression in the X direc-
tion, the experimental and simulated Poisson’s ratios
were approximately −0.7 at the beginning then it
decreased gradually with the axial strain to approxi-
mately −0.8 (Figure 13(c)). In the case of compression
in the Y direction, Poisson’s ratios were −1 at the begin-
ning and increased gradually with the axial strain to
approximately −0.7 (Figure 13(d)).
Figure 13(e) and (f) show the Poisson’s ratios of the tet-
rachiral and anti–tetrachiral honeycombs respectively. The
auxetic feature of the chiral honeycombs came from
rotation of cylinders. It was previously reported that the
theoretical Poisson’s ratio of chiral honeycombs is −1
(Prall and Lakes 1997). The Poisson’s ratio of the current
anti-tetrachiral honeycomb was −1, the same as the theor-
etical prediction. However, the current tetrachiral honey-
comb displayed a slightly different value of Poisson’s
ratio of approximately −0.8 (experimental) and −0.76
(simulated). This could be due to the relatively small
lateral deformation illustrated in Section 4.1.3. It is worth

noting that the theoretical results mentioned above did
not consider the axial and shear deformation of the walls
or any deformation of the cylinders (Bornengo, Scarpa,
and Remillat 2005). A discrepancy between the experimen-
tal and FE Poisson’s ratio of the chiral honeycombs has
been noticed due to a kink in the data of the experimental
lateral strain (Alderson et al. 2010).
4.3. Energy absorption
Energy absorption capacity of structure is an important
indicator for their applications. From an energy absorp-
tion prospective, relative density is an important par-
ameter (Avalle, Belingardi, and Montanini 2001). The
absorbed energy per unit mass SEA (specific energy
absorption) and per unit volume Wv were also important
indicators in evaluating the energy absorption capacity.
The absorbed energy of the tested specimens was calcu-
lated up to the onset of densification strain (1cd ) The 1cd
is the strain where densification initiates (Li, Magkiriadis,
and Harrigan 2006). Several methods were proposed to
determine the 1cd (Chan and Xie 2003; Vural and Ravi-
chandran 2003; Onck, Andrews, and Gibson 2001). In
the current study, energy efficiency method was used
(Shen, Lu, and Ruan 2010; Onck, Andrews, and Gibson
2001). Based on this method, the energy absorption
efficiency, E, is calculated as the area under a stress–
strain curve divided by the instantaneous stress (sa ):
1a
s(1)d1
E(1a ) = 0
, 0 ≤ 1a ≤ 1
sa
where 1a is the strain at sa . Energy efficiency was plotted
versus nominal engineering strain and 1cd was defined as
the value of the strain that corresponds to the maximum
efficiency:
dEa (1a )
| = 0 0 ≤ 1cd ≤
d1 1a =1cd
Figure 14. Stress-stain curves and energy efficiency curves of one experimental specimen of the RCA structure compressed in the: (a) X
direction; (b) Y direction.
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 15
For clarification, the calculated values of the 1cd and
the absorbed energy (shaded area) of one experimental
RCA specimen when it was loaded in the X and Y direc-
tions are shown in Figure 14(a) and (b), respectively.
From Figure 14, it is noted that most of the energy was
absorbed in the plateau regime. Therefore, the magni-
tude of plateau stress (s pl ) and its length are encoura-
ging to guarantee a sufficient energy absorption (Habib
et al. 2017). The plateau stress of the compressed speci-
mens was calculated using Equation (6) (Li, Magkiriadis,
and Harrigan 2006).
1cd
1y s(1)d1
s pl = (6)
1cd − 1y
where 1y is the yield strain. The calculated values of the
1cd and s pl are summarised in Table 4. It is clear that the
re–entrant honeycomb showed the smallest 1cd (i.e. they
densified earlier than the RCA, chiral and the anti-chiral
specimens).
The absorbed energy per unit volume, Wv , was calculated
as the cumulative areas under the stress–strain curves up to
the onset of densification strain (1cd ) using Equation (7),
while the SEA was calculated using Equation (8).

1cd
Wv = s(1)d1 (7)
0
SEA = Wv /r (8)
where s is the stress and r is the density of a structure.
Figure 15(a) and (b) show the calculated values of the
(4)
Wv and SEA of the four auxetic structures. It can be
seen that the energy absorption capacity of the RCA
structure was remarkably dependent on the loading
direction. In the case of compression in the Y direction,
the RCA structure revealed the highest specific energy
absorption (SEA and Wv ) than other auxetic honey-
(5) combs. However, in the case of compression in the X
direction, the specific energy absorption of the RCA
16 A. ALOMARAH ET AL.

Table 4. Onset strain of densification (1cd ), and plateau stress of the compressed specimens (Notes: letters S-1 and S-2 denote
specimens No 1 and 2 respectively; X and Y are the loading directions).
RCA-X RCA-Y Re-entrant -X Re-entrant -Y Tetra. Anti-tetra.
Calculated parameters S-1 FEA S-1 FEA S-1 FEA S-1 FEA S-1 FEA S-1 FEA
1cd 0.43 0.45 0.53 0.56 0.32 0.35 0.34 0.40 0.64 0.62 0.44 0.48
spl (MPa) 0.89 0.91 1.35 1.60 0.64 0.67 0.47 0.50 0.59 0.74 0.59 0.79

structure was smaller than that of the tetrachiral honey-
comb, while it was higher than that of all other honey-
combs. Note that the re–entrant honeycomb showed
the smallest SEA and Wv .
5. Effect of friction
In order to investigate the effect of friction on the
FEA results, the validated FE models of RCA structure
were employed. The FE models were the same as
those described in Section 3 except the values of fric-
tion coefficient (μ). Five cases with various friction
coefficients, μ = 0, μ = 0.25, μ = 0.5, μ = 0.75 and μ =
1, were considered. Figure 16(a–b) shows the FE
models (non–deformed and at 0.15 axial strain
when μ = 1), the lateral global dimension of the orig-
inal specimen is represented by the red dashed lines.
Figure 16(c–d) shows the stress–strain curves of the

Figure 15. Energy absorption capacity of the four auxetic structures up to the onset strain of densification 1cd : (a) specific energy
absorption per unit volume (Wv ); (b) specific energy absorption per unit mass (SEA).

Figure 16. (a) FE photographs of the compressed RCA specimens (1- non deformed; 2- at 0.15 axial strain when μ=1) and the effect of
friction on the stress–strain curves; (a) and (b) compression in the X direction; (c) and (d) compression in the Y direction. Dashed lines
represent the lateral global dimension of the original specimen.
RCA structure when different values of μ were
employed. Results showed that the larger the friction
coefficient, the larger the stress level. For both
loading directions, when the friction was large (μ ≥
0.75), the stress-strain curves were almost the same.
However, the effect of friction on the RCA com-
pressed in the X direction was more evident com-
pared with that in the case of compression in the Y
direction. This is due to the different deformation
modes of the RCA specimens under compression in
the different directions as mentioned in Section
4.1.1. Moreover, when the RCA is compressed in the
Y direction and the interaction between the speci-
mens and the compressive platens (top and
bottom) was frictionless (μ = 0), the stress–stain
curve is considerably different from those when fric-
tion exists.
6. Size effect of RCA specimens
Previous studies manifested that the number of cells
has a significant effect on the mechanical properties
of cellular structures (Yang et al. 2015; Onck,
Andrews, and Gibson 2001). In order to evaluate the
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 17
effect of number of unit cells of RCA structures,
numerical simulation was conducted. The settings of
the FE models such as element size, material proper-
ties, friction coefficient, boundary and loading con-
ditions were taken as the same as those described in
Section 3. Due to the non–symmetricity of the RCA
unit cell in the X and Y directions, the number of FE
models varied corresponding to the loading direction
to prevent buckling. Seven FE models were developed
in the case of X direction compression (Figure 17(a)): 2
× 1 (=2), 3 × 2 ( = 6), 4 × 2 ( = 8), 5 × 3 ( = 15), 6 × 3 ( =
18), 7 × 4 (=28) and 8 × 4 ( = 32) cells, while five FE
models were developed in the case of Y direction
compression (Figure 17(b)): 2 × 1 (=2), 3 × 2 ( = 6), 4
× 3 ( = 12), 5 × 4 ( = 20) and 6 × 5 ( = 30) cells. The
stresses were plotted as a function of number of
unit cells as shown in Figure 17(c). It can be seen
that when the number of cells < 15, the stress was sig-
nificantly affected, while when the number of cells ≥
15, the stress plateaued out. These results confirmed
that the number of cells of the experimental speci-
mens used in this study was reasonable, in which
the bulk properties of the RCA structure were
obtained.
18 A. ALOMARAH ET AL.

Figure 17. Size effect on the mechanical response of the RCA structure: (a) FE models of the compression in the X direction (numbers
under each model are the numbers of unit cell); (b) FE models of the compression in the Y direction; (c) stress vs. number of unit cells.

7. Concluding remarks 2. The mechanical performance of the non–symmetric

structures varied based on the alignment of cells cor-
In this study, the compressive properties of re–entrant
responding to the applied load. In the case of RCA
chiral auxetic (RCA) and three popular honeycombs
structure, the mechanical performance was sensitive
(re–entrant, tetrachiral and anti– tetrachiral) were
to the load direction (anisotropic response).
examined. Multi Jet Fusion (MJF) 3D printing tech-
3. The RCA structure exhibited larger stress than other
nique was used to manufacture twelve specimens
auxetic honeycombs. However, the RCA structure
from polyamide 12 (PA12). The in–plane deformation
revealed low elastic stress when it was loaded in the
modes, stress–strain curves, energy absorption and
Y direction.
auxetic behaviour of the tested specimens were inves-
4. The lateral contraction came mainly from the inward
tigated. Friction and size effects were numerically
movement of the inclined walls and rotation of cylin-
examined. The main concluding remarks are drawn
ders in the case of the re–entrant honeycomb and
as follows.
chiral honeycombs, respectively. Since the unit cell
of the RCA structure combines the topological fea-
1. A successful fabrication of the printed specimens with tures of both honeycombs, the lateral contraction
high-precision dimensions has been achieved using came from both factors. In the Y direction, the
Multi Jet Fusion (MJF). auxetic feature (i.e. negative Poisson’s ratio) of the

RCA structure was consistently larger than that of the
other honeycombs, whereas in the X direction, the
auxetic feature of the RCA structure was much
larger than that of other honeycombs up to a strain
of 0.08.
5. The RCA structure compressed in the Y direction dis-
played the highest specific energy absorption (SEA
and Wv ) among all other auxetic honeycombs
studied in this paper, while the specific energy
absorption of only the tetrachiral honeycomb
surpass that of the RCA structure compressed in the
X direction.
6. The FE simulation revealed that the effect of friction
was more evident when the RCA structure is sub-
jected to compression in the X direction loading
than that in the Y direction. In both loading directions,
friction effect was significantly decreased when fric-
tion coefficient was large (μ ≥ 0.75).
7. The FE results confirmed that the number of unit cells
of the experimental specimens of the RCA structure
used in this study was reasonable and achieved the
bulk properties.
8. This study indicates that the RCA structure is a prom-
ising energy absorber under quasi-static uniaxial
loading. In engineering applications, structures may
be subjected to loading in more than one direction
as well as dynamic loading. Therefore, future work is
expected to examine the in-plane mechanical proper-
ties of the RCA structure under biaxial compression
and dynamic loading.
Acknowledgments
The first author would like to thank the Republic of Iraq, the
Higher Committee of Education Development in Iraq (HCED)
for the financial support of a postgraduate research award.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Amer Alomarah is Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Mech-
anical and Product Design Engineering, Faculty of Science,
Engineering and Technology at Swinburne University of Tech-
nology, Melbourne, Australia. He is a lecturer in the Department
of Mechanical engineering, Faculty of Engineering at Wasit Uni-
versity, Iraq. His research activities are mainly focused on cellu-
lar structures, auxetic metamaterial, effect of different 3D
printing processes on the mechanical performance of cellular
structures and additive manufacturing technologies. Alomarah
has published several high-level papers included in auxetic
structures.
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 19
Syed H. Masood is Full Professor in the Department of Mechan-
ical and Product Design Engineering at Swinburne University of
Technology, Melbourne, Australia. His research interests are
mainly focused on Advanced Manufacturing Processes, Addi-
tive Manufacturing, Fused Deposition Modelling, Selective
Laser Melting, Direct Metal Deposition, Cold Spray and Rapid
Tooling. He has published over 360 articles in international jour-
nals and conferences to date, and has received several major
research grants in these areas.
Igor Sbarski is an Associate Professor in the Department of
Mechanical and Product Design Engineering, Faculty of
Science, Engineering and Technology at Swinburne University
of Technology, Australia. His research interests include Poly-
mers, Plastics and Mechanical Engineering.
Batool Faisal is an Associate professor in the Department of
Mechanical engineering, Faculty of Engineering at Wasit Uni-
versity, Iraq. Her researches focus on viscoelastic behaviour of
engineering materials, nanotechnology and their applications
especially in biomechanical field.
Zhanyuan Gao is a lecturer in the School of Civil Engineering,
TianJin ChengJian University, China. His research interests
include dynamic analysis of structures.
Dong Ruan is Full Professor in the Department of Mechanical
and Product Design Engineering at Swinburne University of
Technology, Australia. Her research interests include character-
isation of the mechanical properties of various materials at high
strain rates, evaluation of the mechanical response of structures
subject to dynamic loading, and additive manufacturing.
ORCID
Amer Alomarah http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5783-1292
Dong Ruan http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8463-0568
References
Abramovitch, H., M. Burgard, L. Edery-Azulay, K. E. Evans, M.
Hoffmeister, W. Miller, F. Scarpa, C. W. Smith, and K. F. Tee.
2010. “Smart Tetrachiral and Hexachiral Honeycomb:
Sensing and Impact Detection.” Composites Science and
Technology 70: 1072–1079. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2009.
07.017.
Alderson, A., K. L. Alderson, D. Attard, K. E. Evans, R. Gatt, J. N.
Grima, W. Miller, N. Ravirala, C. W. Smith, and K. Zied. 2010.
“. Elastic Constants of 3-, 4- and 6-Connected Chiral and
Anti-Chiral Honeycombs Subject to Uniaxial in-Plane
Loading.” Composites Science and Technology 70: 1042–
1048. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2009.07.009.
Alderson, A., J. Rasburn, S. Ameer-Beg, P. G. Mullarkey, W. Perrie,
and K. E. Evans. 2000. “An Auxetic Filter: A Tuneable Filter
Displaying Enhanced Size Selectivity or Defouling
Properties.” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 39:
654–665. doi:10.1021/ie990572w.
Alderson, A., J. Rasburn, K. Evans, and J. Grima. 2001. “Auxetic
Polymeric Filters Display Enhanced de-Fouling and
Pressure Compensation Properties.” Membrane Technology
2001: 6–8. doi:10.1016/S0958-2118(01)80299-8.
Alomarah, A., D. Ruan, and S. Masood. 2018a. “Tensile Properties
of an Auxetic Structure with re-Entrant and Chiral Features—
20 A. ALOMARAH ET AL.
a Finite Element Study.” The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 99: 2425–2440. doi:10.
1007/s00170-018-2637-y.
Alomarah, A., D. Ruan, S. Masood, I. Sbarski, and B. Faisal. 2018b.
“An Investigation of in-Plane Tensile Properties of re-Entrant
Chiral Auxetic Structure.” The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 1–17. doi:10.1007/
s00170-018-1605-x.
Alomarah, A., D. Ruan, S. Masood, and G. Zhanyuan. 2019.
“Compressive Properties of a Novel Additively
Manufactured 3D Auxetic Structure.” Smart Materials and
Structures Accepted. doi:10.1088/1361-665X/ab0dd6.
Alomarah, A., J. Zhang, D. Ruan, S. Masood, and G. Lu. 2017.
“Mechanical Properties of the 2D Re-Entrant Honeycomb
Made via Direct Metal Printing.” IOP Conference Series:
Materials Science and Engineering 229. doi:10.1088/1757-
899X/229/1/012038.
Assidi, M., and J. F. Ganghoffer. 2012. “Composites with Auxetic
Inclusions Showing Both an Auxetic Behavior and
Enhancement of Their Mechanical Properties.” Composite
Structures 94: 2373–2382. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.02.026.
A. Standard, D638-14. 2014. Standard Test Method for Tensile
Properties of Plastics. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.
Avalle, M., G. Belingardi, and R. Montanini. 2001. “Characterization
of Polymeric Structural Foams Under Compressive Impact
Loading by Means of Energy-Absorption Diagram.”
International Journal of Impact Engineering 25: 455–472.
doi:10.1016/S0734-743X(00)00060-9.
Bezazi, A., and F. Scarpa. 2007. “Mechanical Behaviour of
Conventional and Negative Poisson’s Ratio Thermoplastic
Polyurethane Foams Under Compressive Cyclic Loading.”
International Journal of Fatigue 29: 922–930. doi:10.1016/j.
ijfatigue.2006.07.015.
Bezazi, A., and F. Scarpa. 2009. “Tensile Fatigue of Conventional
and Negative Poisson’s Ratio Open Cell PU Foams.”
International Journal of Fatigue 31: 488–494. doi:10.1016/j.
ijfatigue.2008.05.005.
Bornengo, D., F. Scarpa, and C. D. L. R. Remillat. 2005.
“Evaluation of Hexagonal Chiral Structure for Morphing
Airfoil Concept.” P I MECH ENG G-J AER 219 (3): 185–192.
doi:10.1243/095441005X30216.
Chan, K. C., and L. S. Xie. 2003. “Dependency of Densification
Properties on Cell Topology of Metal Foams.” Scripta Materialia
48: 1147–1152. doi:10.1016/S1359-6462(02)00593-6.
Choi, J., and R. Lakes. 1996. “Fracture Toughness of re-Entrant
Foam Materials with a Negative Poisson’s Ratio: Experiment
and Analysis.” International Journal of Fracture 80: 73–83.
doi.org/10.1007/BF00036481.
Evans, K. 1991. “Auxetic Polymers: a new Range of Materials.”
Endeavour 15: 170–174. doi.org/10.1016/0160-9327
(91)90123-S.
Evans, K., A. Alderson, and F. Christian. 1995. “Auxetic two-
Dimensional Polymer Networks: an Example of Tailoring
Geometry for Specific Mechanical Properties.” Journal of
the Chemical Society, Faraday Transactions 91: 2671–2680.
doi:10.1039/ft9959102671.
Funkel, F., G. Ramstein, G. Molinari, A. F. Arrieta, and P. Ermanni.
2019. “Mechanics of Curved-Ligament Hexachiral
Metastructures Under Planar Deformations.” Journal of the
Mechanics and Physics of Solids 125: 145–163. doi:10.1016/j.
jmps.2018.12.001.
Gibson, L., and M. Ashby. 1997. Cellular Solids, Structure and
Properties. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grima, J. N., A. Alderson, and K. E. Evans. 2014. “Negative
Poisson’S Ratios from Rotating Rectangles.” Computational
Methods in Science and Technology 10: 137–145. doi:10.
12921/cmst.2004.10.02.137-145.
Grima, J. N., and K. E. Evans. 2000. “Auxetic Behavior From
Rotating Squares.” Journal of Materials Science Letters 19:
1563–1565. doi:10.1023/A:1006781224002.
Grima, J. N., R. Gatt, A. Alderson, and K. E. Evans. 2005. “On
the Potential of Connected Stars as Auxetic Systems.”
Molecular Simulation 31: 925–935. doi:10.1080/
08927020500401139.
Habib, F. N., P. Iovenitti, S. H. Masood, and M. Nikzad. 2017. “In-
plane Energy Absorption Evaluation of 3D Printed Polymeric
Honeycombs.” Virtual and Physical Prototyping 12: 117–131.
doi:10.1080/17452759.2017.1291354.
Hou, X., Z. Deng, and K. Zhang. 2016. “Dynamic Crushing
Strength Analysis of Auxetic Honeycombs.” Acta Mechanica
Solida Sinica 29: 490–501. doi:10.1016/S0894-9166
(16)30267-1.
Imbalzano, G., P. Tran, T. D. Ngo, and P. V. S. Lee. 2017. “Three-
dimensional Modelling of Auxetic Sandwich Panels for
Localised Impact Resistance.” Journal of Sandwich Structures
& Materials 19: 291–316. doi:10.1177/1099636215618539.
Li, D., L. Dong, and R. S. Lakes. 2013. “The Properties of Copper
Foams with Negative Poisson’s Ratio via Resonant
Ultrasound Spectroscopy.” Physica Status Solidi B – Basic
Research 250: 1983–1987. doi:10.1002/pssb.201384229.
Li, Q. M., I. Magkiriadis, and J. J. Harrigan. 2006. “Compressive
Strain at the Onset of Densification of Cellular Solids.”
Journal of Cellular Plastics 42: 371–392. doi:10.1177/
0021955X06063519.
Liu, W., N. Wang, T. Luo, and Z. Lin. 2016. “In-plane Dynamic
Crushing of re-Entrant Auxetic Cellular Structure.” Materials
& Design 100: 84–91. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2016.03.086.
Ma, X. F., D. H. Guo, and Y. H. Lu. 2012. “The Research of Static
Friction Coefficient Measure Technology and Calibration
Method for Traffic Engineering.” Applied Mechanics and
Materials 128–129: 1493–1496. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.
net/AMM.128-129.1493.
O’Connor, H. J., A. N. Dickson, and D. P. Dowling. 2018.
“Evaluation of the Mechanical Performance of Polymer
Parts Fabricated Using a Production Scale Multi jet Fusion
Printing Process.” Additive Manufacturing 22: 381–387.
doi:10.1016/j.addma.2018.05.035.
Olurin, O. B., N. A. Fleck, and M. F. Ashby. 2000. “Deformation
and Fracture of Aluminium Foams.” Materials Science and
Engineering 291: 136–146. doi:10.1016/S0921-5093
(00)00954-0.
Onck, P. R., E. W. Andrews, and L. J. Gibson. 2001. “Size Effects in
Ductile Cellular Solids. Part I: Modeling.” International Journal
of Mechanical Sciences 43: 681–699. doi:10.1016/S0020-7403
(00)00042-4.
Prall, D., and R. Lakes. 1997. “Properties of a Chiral Honeycomb
with a Poisson’s Ratio of −1. (longer Version). International
Journal of Mechanical Sciences 39 (3): 305–314. doi:10.1016/
S0020-7403(96)00025-2.
Qiao, J. X., and C. Q. Chen. 2015. “Impact Resistance of Uniform
and Functionally Graded Auxetic Double Arrowhead
Honeycombs.” International Journal of Impact Engineering
83: 47–58. doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2015.04.005.

Scarpa, F., W. A. Bullough, and P. Lumley. 2004. “Trends in
Acoustic Properties of Iron Particle Seeded Auxetic
Polyurethane Foam.” Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part C 218: 241–244. doi:10.1243/
095440604322887099.
Shen, J., G. Lu, and D. Ruan. 2010. “Compressive Behaviour of
Closed-Cell Aluminium Foams at High Strain Rates.”
Composites Part B: Engineering 41: 678–685. doi:10.1016/j.
compositesb.2010.07.005.
Vural, M., and G. Ravichandran. 2003. “Microstructural Aspects
and Modeling of Failure in Naturally Occurring Porous
Composites.” Mechanics of Materials 35: 523–536. doi:10.
1016/S0167-6636(02)00268-5.
Wang, H., Z. Lu, Z. Yang, and X. Li. 2019. “A Novel re-Entrant
Auxetic Honeycomb with Enhanced in-Plane Impact
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 21
Resistance.” Composite Structures 208: 758–770. doi:10.
1016/j.compstruct.2018.10.024.
Wang, X., S. Xu, S. Zhou, W. Xu, M. Leary, P. Choong, M. Qian, M.
Brandt, and Y. M. Xie. 2016. “Topological Design and Additive
Manufacturing of Porous Metals for Bone Scaffolds and
Orthopaedic Implants: A Review.” Biomaterials 83: 127–141.
doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.01.012.
Yang, L., O. Harrysson, H. West, and D. Cormier. 2015.
“Mechanical Properties of 3D re-Entrant Honeycomb
Auxetic Structures Realized via Additive Manufacturing.”
International Journal of Solids and Structures 69–70: 475–
490. doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.05.005.
Yang, C., H. D. Vora, and Y. Chang. 2018. “Behavior of Auxetic
Structures Under Compression and Impact Forces.” Smart
Materials and Structures 27. doi:10.1088/1361-665X/aaa3cf.