Composite Structures 267 (2021) 113915

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Parameter optimization of bidirectional re-entrant auxetic honeycomb

metamaterial based on genetic algorithm
Liang Wang, Hai-Tao Liu ⇑
School of Mechanical Engineering, National Engineering Research Center for Technological Innovation Method and Tool, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this work, we design and test a parameter optimization method by Python script to meet the urgent demand
Honeycomb metamaterial for lightweight honeycomb metamaterial. The method mainly focuses on the selection of parameters according
Auxetic effect to the mass and Poisson’s ratio of the honeycomb metamaterial. The bidirectional re‐entrant honeycomb is pro-
Parameter optimization posed as an objective to be optimized and the formula of Poisson's ratio is deduced theoretically to establish the
Multi‐island genetic algorithm
internal relation. Besides, the accuracy of the Python script results is verified by static compression experimen-
tal results and theoretical results. Combined the Python script programming model with the genetic algorithm
optimization method, the optimal honeycomb metamaterial solutions are obtained. Results show that the
parameter optimization method using multi‐island genetic algorithm (GA) can avoid a local solution’s appear-
ance, and both the shell model and the solid model can obtain the ideal optimal solution. Furthermore, the 3D
honeycomb has an admirable auxetic effect according to the optimized parameters, which provides a piece of
strong evidence for the continuous application of optimization algorithms to improve the mechanical proper-
ties of honeycomb metamaterial.

1. Introduction
Many natural cellular materials are structured regularly and have
fascinating mechanical properties and functions for natural selec-
tion/adaptation [1–4]. In recent decades, metamaterials have been
carefully designed to meet many applications including acoustics
[5–7], optics [8–11], mechanics [12–19], electromagnetism [20,21],
and so on. The various properties of metamaterials can guide the struc-
ture design and obtain excellent performance. The theoretical formula
is deduced by establishing the mechanical model, and its correctness is
verified by abundant experiments. However, it is undeniable that the
analysis difficulty caused by the complex structure, and the result devi-
ation caused by the experimental conditions need to spend a lot of
time to solve.
With the development of optimization methods, traditional topol-
ogy optimization [12,22] and morphology optimization [13,23] are
no longer the exclusive methods. The technology of machine learning
[8,16–18,24–27] presents a practical and effective method for solving
complex optimization problems. In recent years, the genetic algorithm
has been widely concerned in the field of structural optimization, with
its simplicity and powerful robustness. Jafar et al. [8] presented the
adaptive genetic algorithm for optical metasurfaces design. Hou
et al. [16] and Ma et al. [17] combined the design of the metamaterial
with deep learning. Bessa et al. [18] studied the fragile problem with
the help of Bayesian machine learning. He et al. [24] utilized the
machine learning method to predict the DNN model. Choi et al. [25]
adopted the inverse design method to achieve bistability by reducing
the size of the hinges. Wu et al. [26] introduced a machine learning‐
based method to design modular metamaterials with specific
properties.
In addition, mechanical metamaterials are divided into two aspects
from the structural dimension. The first category is planar mechanical
metamaterials, their deformation has nothing to do with the properties
outside the plane. The second category is 3D mechanical metamateri-
als, which take into account more complex forces and deformation. It
is significantly simpler to derive a 3D structure [28–40] from planar
structures than to obtain it directly. The properties of planar structures
often play a leading role in the study of 3D structural properties. For
example, Wang et al. [28,29] studied 3D re‐entrant hexagonal struc-
ture and double arrow‐head structure on the basis of previous studies
of a planar structure. Imbalzano [30] extended a 3D auxetic from 2D
re‐entrant auxetic structure and 3D re‐entrant elongated dodecahe-
dron to obtain the auxetic behavior also in the transverse planes. Wang
and Liu [31,32] developed a 3D compression‐torsion structure from

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: htliu@hebut.edu.cn (H.-T. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.113915
Received 27 June 2020; Revised 22 February 2021; Accepted 24 March 2021
Available online 30 March 2021
0263-8223/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Wang, H.-T. Liu Composite Structures 267 (2021) 113915

two similar 2D structures. Furthermore, the U‐shaped structure [33], expressed by defining total length L, oblique wall length b, wall thick-
cross‐rods structure [34], axisymmetric rotation structure [35], and ness t, edge length d, wall length c and re‐entrant angle θ, as displayed
other 3D structures are all developed based on 2D structure properties. in Fig. 2 (a). The gauge thickness of the honeycomb panels is indicated
The research ideas of the above structures are all based on the applica- as h. As the method in literature [23], the geometry of the unit cell is
tion of 2D structure expansion to obtain a 3D structure, which has also defined by non‐dimensional parameters like α, β and γ (α ¼ d=b,
obvious reference value. To a certain extent, using machine learning β ¼ t=b, γ ¼ h=b).
and genetic algorithm to optimize the structure can improve the design
efficiency and calculation cost. However, to the authors’ knowledge, 2.2. Theoretical analysis
little or even no paper was reported by Python language and multi‐
island GA for mechanical metamaterials. The free‐body diagrams for loading in Fig. 2(b). Periodic boundary
In this paper, 2D auxetic honeycomb metamaterials are analyzed conditions [41,42] are used, the oblique walls on the left and right
by Castigliano's theorem, and the accuracy of the multi‐island GA sides are fixed. Thus, the structure is only subjected to the Y‐
results is provided for reference. The theoretical solution makes the direction load. By the moment equilibrium condition, the torque of
influence of various geometric parameters of the honeycomb on Pois- arbitrary cross‐section is given as
son's ratio more intuitive. Owing to the complexity of multiple vari-
M s ¼ Fssinθ  M ð1Þ
ables, it is difficult to capture the optimal solution of Poisson's ratio.
Nevertheless, the multi‐island GA saves time cost by taking advantage where F is the external force, and it can be written as
of global traversal, and the parameterized model and the precise con- F ¼ σbhcosθ ð2Þ
straint conditions make the structure more efficient in the process of
parameter optimization. This optimization method plays a positive The deflection angle can be obtained by integrating the bending‐
role in determining the optimal parameters of the structure and deter- moment equation
mines a series of parameter array structures. Z
Ms
ΔðsÞ ¼ ds þ C ð3Þ
Es I
2. Structural design and theoretical analysis
where C is a constant of integration, E s is the Young’s modulus of
the initial material, and I is second moment of area of the wall.
2.1. Structural design
Considering the symmetry of the honeycomb, the deflection angle
at the turning point of the oblique wall is zero. Therefore, the bound-
The geometries of the quadrangular star honeycomb (QSH) and the
ary conditions are obtained as
bidirectional re‐entrant honeycomb (BRH) are displayed in Fig. 1(a)
and (b). Although the QSH is investigated by many researchers, the Δð0Þ ¼ 0; ΔðbÞ ¼ 0 ð4Þ
strength of the structure and the difficulty of manufacturing are two Submitting Eq. (4) to Eq. (3), we can obtain
fatal problems that cannot be ignored. In order to solve the existing (
problems in terms of structural characteristics, the sharp angle of the M ¼ Fb12sinθ
ð5Þ
structure is replaced by a right angle while the expansion mode of C ¼ 0
the structure remains unchanged. The unit cell of BRH can be

Fig. 1. Conceptual illustration of the amplified nodal design for the bidirectional re-entrant honeycomb. (a) QSH; (b) BRH.

2
L. Wang, H.-T. Liu Composite Structures 267 (2021) 113915

Fig. 2. Design and measurement of BRH. (a) structure and unit cell; (b) periodic boundary condition and free-body diagrams; (c) experimental specimens and
compression model; (d) script results (SR), theoretical results (TR) and experimental results (ER) about νyx with varying angles.
  
The horizontal displacement and the vertical displacement of the ð2d þ bcosθÞ b3 þ bt 2 sinθcosθ þ 2d3
νyx ¼  3  ð14Þ
oblique wall in the X‐direction include axial and flexural deformations, ð2d þ bcosθ  bsinθÞ b sinθ2 þ bt 2 cosθ2 þ 2dt 2
as shown in Fig. 2(c). Based on Castigliano's second theorem, they are
obtained as and normalize the equivalent Poisson's ratio can be written as
8   
R R ð2α þ cosθÞ 1 þ β2 tanθ þ 2α3 ðtanθ2 þ 1Þ
< δx ¼ bþ2d Ms M1 ds þ b F s F 1 ds νyx ¼   ð15Þ
0 Es I 0 Es A
ð6Þ ð2α þ cosθ  sinθÞ tanθ þ β þ 2αβ ðtanθ þ 1Þ
2 2 2 2
: δy ¼ R b M s M 1 ds þ R bþ2d F s F 1 ds
0 Es I 0 Es A
Due to the size limitation of the honeycomb, it is necessary to avoid
where M s and F s are actual loads; M 1 and F 1 are unit loads (mo- contacts and intersections of the walls. Therefore, the geometric size of
ments and forces) in the X‐direction. They can be expressed as BRH meets the following constraints
8
Fbsinθ > L ¼ t þ 4d þ 2bcosθ
M s ¼ Fssinθ  ð7Þ >
>
2 < c ¼ 2d
ð16Þ
>
> L=2 ⩾ bcosθ
F s ¼ Fcosθ ð8Þ >
: pffiffiffi
2ðd  t Þ=2b ⩾ cos½ð3π=4  θÞ
bsinθ
M 1 ¼ ssinθ  ð9Þ It is worth noting that the relationship of QSH and BRH can be
2 linked by setting the width to zero, and the BRH can transform the
F 1 ¼ cosθ ð10Þ QSH. Accordingly, Eqs. (14) and (15) are simplified as
 2 
Taking Eqs. (7)‐(10) into Eq. (6), the horizontal displacement and b þ t 2 tanθ
νyx ¼  2  ð17Þ
the vertical displacement are calculated as b tanθ2 þ t 2 ð1  tanθÞ
( 3
2Fd3
δx ¼ Fb 12E
sinθcosθ
þ Fbsinθcosθ þ 12E Normalized the Poisson's ratio by
sI Es A sI
ð11Þ  
1 þ β2 tanθ
3
sinθ2 Fbcosθ2
δy ¼ Fb12E þ þ 2Fd
s I E s A E s A νyx ¼   ð18Þ
tanθ2 þ β2 ð1  tanθÞ
The strain expressions in the X‐direction and the Y‐direction are
obtained as
( δx 3. Reliability of script results
ɛ x ¼ 2dþbðcosθsinθ Þ
δy
ð12Þ
ɛy ¼ 2dþbcosθ In this section, the accuracy of the script results is verified by the-
The equivalent Poisson's ratio are shown as oretical results and experimental results to ensure the reliability of the
optimization results in the process of geometric parameter optimiza-
ɛx
νyx ¼ ð13Þ tion. A series of specimens are printed by industrial‐grade SLA 3D prin-
ɛy
ter Lite800HD, and these specimens are all made of resin material
According to the Eqs. (12) and (13), the equivalent Poisson's ratio similar to ABS. The Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio of resin mate-
are expressed as rial are 2360 MPa and 0.4, respectively. The size of the specimen is

3
L. Wang, H.-T. Liu Composite Structures 267 (2021) 113915

5*4 specifications in the compression experiment, as depicted in Fig. 2

(c). Due to the size of the specimen that can't satisfy the pressure plate
size of the universal testing machine, a long plate is added to the spec-
imen top. Under the condition that the axial compression strain is still
maintained, the negative Poisson's ratio is measured. Displacement
with a strain of 0.01 is applied, and the vernier caliper with a precision
of 0.02 mm is used to measure the lateral contraction displacement of
the honeycomb. The corresponding parameters of specimens are calcu-
lated theoretically and the theoretical solution is obtained, and the
script is used to obtain the finite element solutions. It can be seen that
the theoretical results are slightly higher than the script results and the
experimental results in Fig. 2 (d). In the process of theoretical deriva-
tion, the honeycomb wall is analyzed without discussing shear defor-
mation. Furthermore, the reason why the experimental results are
smaller than the script results should be emphasized. Because the size
of the pressure plate is smaller than that of the specimen, the pressure
distribution on the top surface of the specimen is not uniform, which
leads to the decrease of transverse contraction of the honeycomb.
According to Eq. (15), the theoretical results of BRH on Poisson's
ratio are obtained through changing θ. To explain the rationality of Fig. 4. Script results (SR) (shell model) and theoretical results (TR) for νyx vs.
choosing the shell model, the solid model and the shell model for sim- θ for QSH.
ulation are adopted, respectively. The solid symbols represent the
result of the shell model, and the hollow symbols represent the result
of the solid model. Comparing the script results of the shell with the-
oretical results, they are shown good agreement as shown in Fig. 3.
Due to the shear deformation is not considered, the script results of
the solid model have some deviation from the theoretical curve. It
can be seen that the theoretical curve of BRH does not get the peak
value in the initial angle variation interval, while the Poisson's ratio
decreases rapidly with angle increasing. In addition, the effect of β
on Poisson's ratio is extremely weak after the angle θ increases to 30°.
To enhance the adaptability of the script, we specifically verified
the QSH by changing the parameters. The script results are in great
agreement with the theoretical results as shown in Fig. 4. The relation-
ship between Poisson's ratio and the re‐entrant angle is depicted as a
smooth curve, which keeps increasing in a small range of angles,
and flattens the region as the angle continues to increase. When the
angle increases above 40°, the theoretical value of the QSH increases
rapidly, because the tangent value in the formula is close to an infinite
state. The blue curve and the black curve show distinct peaks as the
angle increases, while the green curve and the red curve cannot reach
the peak value. Furthermore, the QSH can obtain a better deformation
effect near 3° when β is 0.05. As the thickness ratio increases, the
Fig. 5. Comparation of script results (SR) and theoretical results (TR) for four
kinds of honeycomb structures.

Table 1
The multi-island GA parameters setting.

Option Value Option Value

Sub-Population Size 10 Number of Islands 10

Number of Generation 10 Rate of Crossover 1.0
Rate of Mutation 0.01 Rate of Migration 0.01
Interval of Migration 5 Elite Size 1
Real Tournaent Size 0.5 Max Failed Runs 5

deflection of the QSH is limited, and Poisson's ratio decreases

Fig. 3. Script results (SR) (shell & solid model) and theoretical results (TR) for
νyx vs. θ for BRH.
correspondingly.
Fig. 5 shows that Poisson’s ratio of honeycomb decreases with the
re‐entrant angle increasing. Compared with the conventional re‐
entrant hexagonal honeycomb (RHH) [12], the BRH is shown larger
negative Poisson's ratio effectively and enlarge the range of the re‐
entrant angle. Furthermore, the star‐shaped re‐entrant structure
(SSR) [13] is used for comparison. Due to the limitation of the arrange-
ment, two types of SSR cannot always maintain the property of nega-
tive Poisson's ratio, and the transformation range is relatively small.

4
L. Wang, H.-T. Liu Composite Structures 267 (2021) 113915

Fig. 6. The structural parameter optimization by the multi-island GA and Python script model.

Table 2
The bounds of control parameters.

Variable θ α β

Min 5° 0.1 0.05

Max 90.0° 1.0 0.5

Therefore, the BRH can obtain a larger Poisson's ratio effect on the
basis of guaranteeing the star‐shaped structure.

4. Optimization model construction

The basis of automatic modeling is to parameterize the unit cell of

the honeycomb with several independent parameters. The unit cell of
BRH can be quantitatively described as six parameters, i.e. L; θ; b; d; t
and h. The shell model is created by using ABAQUS/Standard, the
numerical object is composed of 10*9 unit cells to eliminate the possi-
ble size effect. The periodic distribution of honeycomb provides the
parametric design of the structure, and the parametric model is
obtained by periodic arraying. Considering the convergence of the cal-
culation and mesh sensitivity, five integration points through the
thickness are adopted in the following simulations. The element size
is 0.5 mm. The materials parameters areρ ¼ 2700 kg=m3 ,
E s ¼ 69 GPa and ν ¼ 0:33. The multi‐island GA is proposed to increase
the diversity of samples and prevent premature convergence. It is
assumed that the number of calculated and the number of species
remains constant. The population is transformed into several islands
to maintain population diversity, and each island is calculated in the
genetic algorithm. The main purpose is to improve the search capabil-
ity of the multi‐island GA. Isight 5.8 Design Gateway is chosen to com-
plete the optimization task, and the multi‐island GA is chosen as the
optimization tool. The optimization parameter settings are shown in
Table 1. The steps of the optimization process include the Python
script model, the multi‐island GA and the optimized data as shown
in Fig. 6.
Fig. 7. Optimization iteration history of mass for BRH with the range of νyx .
(a) (-5, −0.5); (b) (-4.5, −2).

5
L. Wang, H.-T. Liu Composite Structures 267 (2021) 113915

Fig. 8. Optimization iteration history of νxy for BRH (constraint condition:

1000 g < mass < 5000 g).

In the process of the optimization algorithm, the subgroup of 10,

Island of 10, the population of 10 to 1000 times iteration calculation,
the crossover rate is 1.0, the mutation rate is 0.01, and movement
speed is 0.01. In the optimization work, sufficient unit cells are chosen
to eliminate the boundary effect. Owing to the target is the mass of the
BRH, negative Poisson's ratio is taken as a constraint condition under
small deformation. The optimization formulations of lightweight
design are expressed as
8
< Find : X ¼ ½θ; α; β
>
Min : mass ð19Þ
>
:
S:t: : 5:0 ⩽ νyx ⩽ 0:5

The steps of the total optimization process include selecting opti- Fig. 10. Construction diagram of 3D BRH. (a)(b) The plates#1 and plates#2;
mization variables, creating Python script, testing and debugging (c)-(f) Transverse and longitudinal of plates; (g)-(h) 3D BRH#1 and 3D
Python script results, establish and solving optimization model. Con- BRH#2; (i) 3D BRH#3.
sidering the elastic buckling of the cell wall and geometry conflicts,

Fig. 9. (a) Initial model; (b) Optimized model; (c)(d) The deformation of Python script programming model before and after optimization; (e) Mises stress
nephograms of honeycombs under different strain conditions.

6
L. Wang, H.-T. Liu
Fig. 11. Displacement nephograms of 3D BRH in X-Y-Z direction. (a) 3D BRH#1; (b) 3D BRH#2; (c) 3D BRH#3.
the bounds of control parameters are shown in Table 2. The Python
script is testing by running ABAQUS and debugging the script by mod-
ifying the corresponding parameters.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Optimization result analysis
The previous work has proven the reliability of the Python script
results. Therefore, this section mainly explores the optimization prob-
lem of multi‐variables seeking the lightest mass within a certain Pois-
son's ratio range. The multi‐island GA can avoid the local optimal
solution because it can traverse the parameter range. Fig. 7 (a) and
(b) show the optimization iteration history of mass is targeted as an
optimization goal in the script. In this case, Poisson’s ratio of the hon-
eycomb should be kept between 0.5 and 5. During the optimization
process, the upper and lower limits on each variable are to ensure
the performance of the honeycomb. After changing the range of Pois-
son's ratio, the optimization result is changed accordingly. The range
7
Composite Structures 267 (2021) 113915
of the Poisson’s ratio for BRH is modified from −5 to −4.5 and from
−0.5 to −2, while the mass of BRH gradually converges to 900 g and
cannot reach the previous result. This optimization method can save
time and economic cost to the greatest extent while ensuring structural
performance.
Similarly, the maximum Poisson's ratio is obtained by regarding the
mass as a constraint condition, as shown in Fig. 8. Although unit cells
are completely symmetrical in structure, the Poisson's ratio in the two
orthogonal directions is different due to the form of staggered connec-
tion. The deformation of BRH for loading in X‐direction is presented by
setting νxy as the target. The large variation on Poisson's ratio or mass
reflects the process of algorithms. While the Poisson's ratio keeps
increasing, the change of relevant parameters causes the sudden
change of mass. In the previous structural design, owing to the law
of a variable is not monotonous, the interactions between multiple
variables are considered. In the present work, we take mass as the con-
straint variable and Poisson's ratio as the optimization objective. The
global optimal solutions are obtained directly by applying the opti-
mization method of the multi‐island GA. Of course, add a stiffness of
L. Wang, H.-T. Liu
the overall structure as a constraint is also an effective method. This
work is our future research direction by the multi‐island GA, and it
is solved in the future.
Fig. 9 (a) and (b) show that the two configurations of the honey-
comb before and after optimization have great changes in thickness,
angle and width, which are difficult to achieve by optimizing single‐
variable. There are also obvious differences in the optimization results.
Fig. 9 (c) is shown the deformation of the Python script programming
model before optimization. When the optimized honeycomb is sub-
jected to axial compression load, the lateral contraction displacement
increases significantly, and the specific deformation is shown in Fig. 9
(d). The honeycombs are capable of achieving an increased shrinkage
effect under increasing axial strain as shown in Fig. 9 (e). It means that
greater deformation can be achieved by using more ductile materials.
5.2. 3D BRH
Based on the optimized unit cell of BRH, the corresponding 3D
configurations are designed. Fig. 10 (a) and (b) show two‐periodic
honeycomb plates in horizontal and vertical, one is composed of
86 cells and is named plates#1, the other is composed of 85 cells
and is named plates#2. Five plates#1 are arranged parallel and
equidistant, as shown in Fig. 10 (c) and (d). Put them with the stag-
gered arrangement, the 3D BRH#1 is obtained. Similarly, four
plates#2 meet the staggered arrangement, the 3D BRH#2 is also
obtained. The two honeycombs can maintain the Poisson's ratio effect
independently, but the void ratio is large and the space utilization is
insufficient in Fig. 10 (g) and (h). Therefore, the combination of the
3D BRH#1 and the 3D BRH#2 is obtained and called 3D BRH#3, as
shown in Fig. 10 (i).
The 3D BRH#1 and the 3D BRH#2 are analyzed by numerical sim-
ulation, and the displacement nephograms are depicted in Fig. 11 (a)
and (b). When uniform distributed axial load is applied in the Y‐
direction, the 3D BRH#1 and the 3D BRH#2 maintain the same con-
traction in the X‐direction and Z‐direction. To put it in a nutshell, νyx
and νyz are always equal in deformation. However, compared to
BRH#1 and BRH#2, BRH#3 has a more compact space and shrinkage
effect. While the axial displacement decreases by 16.7% and the same
shrinkage effect are also maintained, as shown in Fig. 11 (c).
Before the design work for the 3D structure, the Poisson’s ratio
behavior is tuned and optimized through the Python script model
and the multi‐island GA. Undoubtedly, the method of parameter opti-
mization saves calculation cost and improves calculation efficiency to
a great extent.
6. Conclusions
In the present paper, a novel programmable optimization strategy
honeycomb metamaterial is put forward for the first time. The main
feature is to integrate modeling, operation and post‐processing by
using Python language. The multi‐island GA is used to improve opti-
mization autonomy.
Firstly, theoretical models of cell array honeycomb are proposed
and their theoretical solutions are derived based on Castigliano's sec-
ond theorem. Secondly, the reliability of the script results is verified
by the compression experiment and theoretical derivation, and the
error is acceptable. Due to a small number of experimental samples
are not enough to explain the universality of the script, the idea of con-
trol variable method is used to verify the reliability of the script. The
errors of the fitting result are very small and the script is very reliable.
Finally, the Python script programming model is combined with the
multi‐island GA to carry out optimization modes about minimum mass
and maximum Poisson's ratio. The results show that the honeycomb’s
optimization efficiency is high, and the specific performance of the
optimized honeycomb is more significant. This optimization method
8
Composite Structures 267 (2021) 113915
is generally applicable to the target design of array‐type cube‐shaped
structures.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China (11702079).
References
[1] Lees C, Vincent JFV, Hillerton JE. Poisson's ratio in skin. Biomed Mater Eng 1991;1
(1):19–23.
[2] Mardling P, Alderson A, Jordan-Mahy N, Le Maitre CL. The use of auxetic materials
in tissue engineering. Biomater Sci 2020;8(8):2074–83.
[3] Williams JL, Lewis JL. Properties and an anisotropic model of cancellous bone
from the proximal tibial epiphysis. J Biomech Eng 1982;104(1):50.
[4] Veronda DR, Westmann RA. Mechanical characterization of skin-finite
deformations. J Biomech 1970;3(1):111–24.
[5] Tian Z, Shen C, Li J, Reit E, Gu Y, Fu H, et al. Programmable acoustic metasurfaces.
Adv Funct Mater 2019;29(13):1808489. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.
v29.1310.1002/adfm.201808489.
[6] Lee D, Nguyen DM, Rho J. Acoustic wave science realized by metamaterials. Nano
Converg 2017;4(1):3.
[7] Xie Y, Fu Y, Jia Z, Li J, Shen C, Xu Y, et al. Acoustic imaging with metamaterial
luneburg lenses. Sci Rep 2018;8(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34581-
7.
[8] Samad JZ, Sandeep I, Hossein M. Adaptive genetic algorithm for optical
metasurfaces design. Sci Rep 2018;8(1):11040.
[9] Lv J, Zhou M, Gu Q, Jiang X, Ying Y, Si G. Metamaterial lensing devices. Molecules
2019;24(13):2460.
[10] Ma X, Pu M, Li X, Guo Y, Gao P, Luo X. Meta-chirality: fundamentals, construction
and applications. Nanomaterials-Basel 2017;7(5):116.
[11] Pitchappa P, Kumar A, Prakash S, Jani H, Venkatesan T, Singh R. Chalcogenide
phase change material for active terahertz photonics. Adv Mater 2019;31
(12):1808157. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.v31.1210.1002/adma.201808157.
[12] Yang H, Wang B, Ma Li. Designing hierarchical metamaterials by topology analysis
with tailored Poisson’s ratio and Young’s modulus. Compos Struct
2019;214:359–78.
[13] De Tommasi D, Marano GC, Puglisi G, Trentadue F. Morphological optimization of
tensegrity-type metamaterials. Compos Part B-ENG 2017;115:182–7.
[14] Yang H, Ma Li. 1D to 3D multi-stable architected materials with zero Poisson's
ratio and controllable thermal expansion. Mater Design 2020;188:108430.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108430.
[15] Tan X, Zhu S, Wang B, Yao K, Chen S, Xu P, et al. Mechanical response of negative
stiffness truncated-conical shell systems: experiment, numerical simulation and
empirical model. Compos Part B-ENG 2020;188:107898. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compositesb:2020.107898.
[16] Hou Z, Tang T, Shen J, Li C, Li F. Prediction network of metamaterial with split
ring resonator based on deep learning. Nanoscale Res Lett 2020;15(1):83.
[17] Ma W, Cheng F, Liu Y. Deep-learning-enabled on-demand design of chiral
metamaterials. ACS Nano 2018;12(6):6326–34.
[18] Bessa MA, Glowacki P, Houlder M. Bayesian machine learning in metamaterial
design: fragile becomes supercompressible. Adv Mater 2019;31(48):1904845.
https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.v31.4810.1002/adma.201904845.
[19] Wang Y-B, Liu H-T, Zhang Z-Y. Rotation spring: Rotation symmetric compression-
torsion conversion structure with high space utilization. Compos Struct
2020;245:112341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112341.
[20] Watts CM, Liu X, Padilla WJ. Metamaterial electromagnetic wave absorbers. Adv
Mater 2012;24(23):OP98–OP120.
[21] Cong L, Savinov V, Srivastava YK, Han S, Singh R. A metamaterial analog of the
Ising model. Adv Mater 2018;30(40):1804210. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.
v30.4010.1002/adma.201804210.
[22] Clausen A, Wang F, Jensen JS, Sigmund O, Lewis JA. Topology optimized
architectures with programmable Poisson’s ratio over large deformations. Adv
Mater 2015;27(37):5523–7.
[23] Gong X, Huang J, Scarpa F, Liu Y, Leng J. Zero Poisson's ratio cellular structure for
two-dimensional morphing applications. Compos Struct 2015;134:384–92.
[24] He J, He C, Zheng C, Wang Q, Ye J. Plasmonic nanoparticle simulations and
inverse design using machine learning. Nanoscale 2019;11(37):17444–59.
[25] Choi GPT, Dudte LH, Mahadevan L. Programming shape using kirigami
tessellations. Nat Mater 2019;18(9):999–1004.
[26] Wu L, Liu L, Wang Y, Zhai Z, Zhuang H, Krishnaraju D, et al. A machine learning-
based method to design modular metamaterials. Extreme Mech Lett
2020;36:100657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eml.2020.100657.
L. Wang, H.-T. Liu
[27] Hougne P, Imani MF, Diebold AV, Horstmeyer R, Smith DR. Learned integrated
sensing pipeline: reconfigurable metasurface transceivers as trainable physical
layer in an artificial neural network. Adv Sci 2020;7(3):1901913. https://doi.org/
10.1002/advs.v7.310.1002/advs.201901913.
[28] Wang X-T, Wang B, Li X-W, Ma Li. Mechanical properties of 3D re-
entrant auxetic cellular structures. Int J Mech Sci 2017;131-
132:396–407.
[29] Wang X-T, Wang B, Wen Z-H, Ma Li. Fabrication and mechanical properties of
CFRP composite three-dimensional double-arrow-head auxetic structures. Compos
Sci Technol 2018;164:92–102.
[30] Imbalzano G, Tran P, Ngo TD, Lee PVS. A numerical study of auxetic composite
panels under blast loadings. Compos Struct 2016;135:339–52.
[31] Wang L, Liu H-T. 3D compression–torsion cubic mechanical metamaterial with
double inclined rods. Extreme Mech Lett 2020;37:100706. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eml.2020.100706.
[32] Wang L, An M-R, Liu H-T. Compression spin bio-inspired arm: A conceptual model
based on compression–torsion cubic mechanical metamaterials with variable
cross-section. Extreme Mech Lett 2020;41:101069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eml.2020.101069.
[33] Yang H, Wang B, Ma Li. Mechanical properties of 3D double-U auxetic structures.
Int J Solids Struct 2019;180-181:13–29.
Composite Structures 267 (2021) 113915
[34] Lu Z, Wang Q, Li X, Yang Z. Elastic properties of two novel auxetic 3D cellular
structures. Int J Solids Struct 2017;124:46–56.
[35] Carneiro VH, Puga H. Axisymmetric auxetics. Compos Struct 2018;204:438–44.
[36] Lee W, Jeong Y, Yoo J, Huh H, Park S-J, Park SH, et al. Effect of auxetic structures
on crash behavior of cylindrical tube. Compos Struct 2019;208:836–46.
[37] Carneiro VH, Puga H, Meireles J. Positive, zero and negative Poisson’s ratio non-
stochastic metallic cellular solids: Dependence between static and dynamic
mechanical properties. Compos Struct 2019;226:111239. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111239.
[38] Jeong S, Yoo HH. Shape optimization of bowtie-shaped auxetic structures using
beam theory. Compos Struct 2019;224:111020. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compstruct.2019.111020.
[39] Ai L, Gao X-L. Metamaterials with negative Poisson’s ratio and non-positive
thermal expansion. Compos Struct 2017;162:70–84.
[40] Mun J, Yun B-G, Ju J, Chang B-M. Indirect additive manufacturing based casting of
a periodic 3D cellular metal-Flow simulation of molten aluminum alloy. J Manuf
Process 2015;17:28–40.
[41] Wang F, Sigmund O, Jensen JS. Design of materials with prescribed nonlinear
properties. J Mech Phys Solid 2014;69:156–74.
[42] Harkati E, Daoudi N, Bezazi A, Haddad A, Scarpa F. In-plane elasticity of a multi
re-entrant auxetic honeycomb. Compos Struct 2017;180:130–9.