materials
Article
Re-Entrant Honeycomb Auxetic Structure with Enhanced
Directional Properties
Farrukh Mustahsan 1 , Sohaib Z. Khan 2, * , Asad A. Zaidi 3 , Yaser H. Alahmadi 2 , Essam R. I. Mahmoud 2
and Hamad Almohamadi 4
Citation: Mustahsan, F.; Khan, S.Z.;
Zaidi, A.A.; Alahmadi, Y.H.;
Mahmoud, E.R.I.; Almohamadi, H.
Re-Entrant Honeycomb Auxetic
Structure with Enhanced Directional
Properties. Materials 2022, 15, 8022.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
ma15228022
Academic Editors: Jun Shintake,
Junshi Zhang, Lei Liu, Yanjie Wang
and Xing Gao
Received: 28 September 2022
Accepted: 8 November 2022
Published: 14 November 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Materials 2022, 15, 8022. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15228022
1 College of Electrical & Mechanical Engineering, National University of Sciences and Technology,
Rawalpindi 43701, Pakistan
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Islamic University of Madinah,
Madinah 42351, Saudi Arabia
3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology,
Hamdard University, Karachi 74600, Pakistan
4 Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Islamic University of Madinah,
Madinah 42351, Saudi Arabia
* Correspondence: szkhan@iu.edu.sa
Abstract: This paper presents a modified re-entrant honeycomb auxetic structure. The structure is
constructed by adding an additional horizontal member between the vertical and re-entrant member
of the semi-re-entrant honeycomb model to increase the overall compliance of the structure in order
to obtain higher values of negative Poisson’s ratio (NPR). An analytical model of the structure is
presented, taking into account the bending, shear, and axial deformations. The model is verified using
finite element analysis (FEA) and tensile testing. The results of FEA and tensile testing corroborate the
results of the presented mathematical model. The structure is also compared to the existing re-entrant
honeycomb structure. The newly added strut has shown a direct effect on the directional properties
of the overall structure. With an increase in the newly added strut to re-entrant lengths, NPR was
significantly enhanced in the x-direction and reduced in the y-direction loadings. The structure shows
an improved Young’s modulus compared to solid material in both loading directions, especially for
the low values of the new strut and re-entrant lengths ratio. The structure also shows that high NPR
can be achieved for low relative density compared to semi re-entrant honeycomb structure.
Keywords: negative Poisson’s ratio; auxetic material; re-entrant honeycomb; tensile loading;
Young’s modulus
1. Introduction
One of the most important properties of a material is its Poisson’s ratio. Most materials
possess a positive Poisson’s ratio, meaning that when the material is stretched in one
direction, its cross-section decreases in the transverse direction. However, a particular class
of materials exhibits a negative Poisson’s ratio (NPR), meaning that their cross-section will
increase in the transverse direction when a tensile load is applied. Such materials/structures
are also commonly known as auxetic or NPR materials/structures. Auxetic materials
provide increased shear modulus, fracture toughness, in-plain strain fracture resistance,
energy absorption, indentation resistance, and acoustic response [1–6].
A study by Donoghue et al. [7] found that auxetic composite laminates require more
energy for a crack to propagate than a conventional laminate under tensile loading, indicat-
ing that auxetic composites provide better fracture toughness than conventional composites.
Another study by Choi and Lakes [8] compared the fracture stiffness of auxetic foams with
conventional foams and observed that auxetic foams provide greater fracture toughness
than conventional ones even with a smaller Young’s modulus. Yao et al. [9] proposed
and tested an anti-pullout auxetic pedicle screw made using the re-entrant honeycomb
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials
Materials 2022, 15, 8022 2 of 20

structure and found that the greater auxeticity of the screw results in a better anti-pullout
performance, which they proposed can resolve the loosening and pulling out issues of
typical pedicle screws currently being used. Several studies were found in the literature
on the behavior of auxetic structures under impact loading. A study by Zhang et al. [4]
showed that sandwich panels with re-entrant honeycomb cores absorbed explosive loads
better than the honeycomb structure.
There have been numerous studies on different types of auxetic unit cells in the litera-
ture, especially in the past decade, due to the ease of manufacturing such structures because
of advancements in additive manufacturing technologies. The traditional periodic cellular
structure was proposed by Gibson et al. [10] in the form of a 2D re-entrant honeycomb. The
structure is made by inverting the direction of inclined members in a typical honeycomb
structure. The resultant structure provides NPR in both the x- and y-directions. A few years
later, Gibson et al. [10] provided a mathematical model for the 2D re-entrant model to cal-
culate its Poisson’s ratio and Young’s modulus based on the flexural method. Subsequently,
Masters et al. [11] improved on this by developing a model for these elastic constants with
the inclusion of stretching, hinging, and flexure. The advent of additive manufacturing
gave way to the manufacturing of three-dimensional versions of the auxetic structures,
which were difficult to manufacture using conventional means; one such structure was
proposed by Lang et al. [12], who provided a model for a 3D version of the re-entrant
honeycomb model and compared it with FEA and experimental testing results.
The re-entrant honeycomb model is the most widely researched auxetic structure [13–18].
Re-entrant is used to describe something directed inwards or that has a negative angle. The
idea of an auxetic structure was first proposed by Gibson et al. [10] in 1982 in the form of
a 2D re-entrant honeycomb by introducing a negative angle in the inclined member of a
typical honeycomb structure. Recently, Al-Rifaie et al. [19] presented their patented idea of
using a re-entrant honeycomb structure manufactured using aluminum sheets by bending in
different orientations, and the structure showed good damping properties.
Multiple structure variations have been proposed to enhance or modify the mechanical
properties of this structure. These structures are made by either adding additional members
to the existing structure or combining it with other types of auxetic structures. One such
structure was proposed by Sigmund et al. [19], where they used topology optimization
techniques to devise a variation of the re-entrant honeycomb model. Fu et al. [20] proposed
a structure created by the additional embedding of a rhombic configuration into a re-entrant
honeycomb model. The structure results in enhanced buckling strength and in−plane
stiffness. Another such structure was proposed by Harkati et al. [21] by adding a chamfer
to the edges of the diagonal member. An analytical model of the structure was presented,
supported by finite element analysis (FEA) results. Adding the chamfer increases NPR
behavior. Bezazi et al. [22] presented a mathematical model for a novel central symmetric
structure by adding a chamfer to the existing honeycomb structure. The authors only
considered bending deflection in the model, calculated the strain in the x-direction caused
by loading in the respective direction, did the same for the y-direction, and divided them
both to obtain the Poisson’s ratio, because of the nature of the central symmetric model.
This approach may not be applicable for other unit cells to calculate values of Poisson’s
ratio, especially in the case of non−isotropic structures. Zhu et al. [23] introduced a
modified version of the re-entrant structure by introducing zigzag inclined members in the
re-entrant honeycomb structure resulting in an increase in stiffness and auxeticity in one
of the principal directions. Wu et al. [24] combined the re-entrant honeycomb and regular
honeycomb structure to create a hybrid structure that can provide positive, negative, and
zero Poisson’s ratio depending on its configuration. Zhang et al. [25] studied the energy
absorption properties of aluminum composite tubes with hexagonal honeycomb and re-
entrant honeycomb fillings and found that the one with the auxetic filling exhibits superior
ductility compared to its non-auxetic counterpart. Nguyen et al. [6] analyzed a sandwich
panel with a re-entrant honeycomb core and graphene nanoplates as the skin, and such a
structure can benefit from the energy absorption and lightweight nature of the structure.
 honeycomb and re-entrant honeycomb fillings and found that the one with the auxetic
filling exhibits superior ductility compared to its non-auxetic counterpart. Nguyen et al.
Materials 2022, 15, 8022 [6] analyzed a sandwich panel with a re-entrant honeycomb core and graphene 3nano- of 20
plates as the skin, and such a structure can benefit from the energy absorption and light-
weight nature of the structure.
A periodic cellular structure is proposed in this paper by adding an extra member to
A periodic cellular structure is proposed in this paper by adding an extra member to
the existing re-entrant honeycomb structure.
the existing re-entrant honeycomb structure.
An additional strut is introduced in the existing re-entrant honeycomb structure to
An additional strut is introduced in the existing re-entrant honeycomb structure to
enhance the auxetic behavior of the structure. A complete analytical model is introduced
enhance the auxetic behavior of the structure. A complete analytical model is introduced to
to cater to in−plane bending, shear, and axial deformation. Variation in the newly intro-
cater to in−plane bending, shear, and axial deformation. Variation in the newly introduced
duced strut length is analyzed analytically, using FEA, and experimentally. A detailed
strut length is analyzed analytically, using FEA, and experimentally. A detailed analysis
analysis
of of the structure
the proposed proposed isstructure
conducted is by
conducted
varying by
the varying
unit cell the unit cellthrough
parameters parameters
the
through the
analytical analytical
equations andequations
FEA. and FEA.

2. Unit
2. Unit Cell
Cell Design
Design
Theproposed
The proposedunit unitcell
cellisisshown
showninin Figure
Figure 1. 1. Horizontal
Horizontal members
members havehave been
been added
added to
to both
both sidessides between
between thethe re-entrant
re-entrant part
part andand
thethe vertical
vertical members
members of the
of the re-entrant
re-entrant hon-
honey-
eycomb
comb structure.
structure. The The newly
newly added
added members
members (shownininred)
(shown red)will
willincrease
increasethethecompliance
compliance
of the structure, which should result in increased deflections, especially
of the structure, which should result in increased deflections, especially in the y-direction, in the y-direction,
whichshould
which shouldincrease
increasethe theNPR
NPRof ofthe
thestructure.
structure.The Thelength
lengthof ofthese
thesemembers
membersisisthethesame
same
and is
and is denoted by by a.a.The
Thestructure
structurecan canbebedefined
defined entirely
entirely using six six
using perimeters which
perimeters whichare:
the length
are: the lengthof the
of inclined member
the inclined L, theL,length
member of theofvertical
the length member
the vertical H, theH,
member length of the
the length
newly
of introduced
the newly member
introduced a, the thickness
member of the struts
a, the thickness t, the
of the depth
struts of the
t, the structure
depth of the in out-
struc-
ture in out-of-plane
of-plane direction b, direction
and the angleb, and the by
made angle made bymember
the inclined the inclined member
with the with axis
horizontal the
horizontal
θ. axis θ.

Figure1.1.Unit
Figure Unitcell
cellof
ofthe
theproposed
proposedstructure.
structure.

Thetotal
The totallength
lengthof
of the
the structure
structure in
in the
the x-
x−and
andy-direction
y-direction can
can be
be calculated
calculated as
as follows:
follows:

lx 𝑙==2(2(2𝑎
2a + + 𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)
Lcosθ ) (1)
(1)
𝑙 = 2(𝐻 − 𝐿𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃) (2)
ly = 2( H − Lsinθ ) (2)
Here 𝒍𝒙 is the length in the x-direction and 𝒍𝒚 is the length in the y-direction. If we
Here l x is the length in the x-direction and ly is the length in the y-direction. If we
are to fit the structure in a cuboid, the volume 𝑽𝒔 that the structure will occupy can be
are to fit the structure in a cuboid, the volume Vs that the structure will occupy can be
calculated as:
calculated as:
Vs𝑉==bl𝑏𝑙
x ly𝑙 ==4b4𝑏(2𝑎
(2a + + 𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)(𝐻
Lcosθ )( H − − 𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)
Lcosθ ) (3)
(3)
The actual
The actual volume
volume V𝑽a𝒂 occupied
occupied by the
the structure
structurecan
canbebecalculated byby
calculated adding thethe
adding in-
dividual volumes
individual volumesofofevery
everymember,
member,which
whichcomes
comesout
outtotobe:
be:

Va𝑉==2bt
2𝑏𝑡(𝐻
( H ++
4a4𝑎
++2L2𝐿)
) (4)
(4)

If we consider the structure as it is or model it as a cuboid with the original structure’s

properties, the model’s mass m will remain the same. The relative density is defined as
 If we consider the structure as it is or model it as a cuboid with the original structure
properties, the model’s mass m will remain the same. The relative density is defined
the ratio of the cuboid model’s density with the model’s actual density. Hence the relati
density of the structure can be calculated as:
Materials 2022, 15, 8022 𝜌 𝑚 𝑉 𝑡(𝐻 + 4𝑎 + 2𝐿) 4 of 20
= × = (
𝜌 𝑉 𝑚 2(2𝑎 + 𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)(𝐻 − 𝐿𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃)
the The
ratioparameters
of the cuboid can be normalized
model’s by model’s
density with the taking the ratios
actual with
density. a fixed
Hence parameter. Th
the relative
makes anofanalysis
density of the
the structure structure
can be much
calculated as: more straightforward. For our case, the fix
parameter is the length of the inclined member L. After inserting the normalized param
ρs m Va t( H + 4a + 2L)
eters, Equation (5) becomes.
= × = (5)
ρ V a m s2(2a + Lcosθ )( H − Lsinθ )
𝐻 4𝑎
𝜌
The parameters can be normalized 𝑡 by taking𝐿the+ ratios
+2
𝐿 with a fixed parameter. This
makes an analysis of the structure=much more straightforward. For our case, the fixed (
𝜌 𝐿 2 2𝑎 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 𝐻 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃
parameter is the length of the inclined member L.
𝐿 After inserting
𝐿 the normalized parameters,
Equation (5) becomes.
Because we are adding an  additional H member to an existing structure, making t
 
4a
L + L +2

ρs t
value of a equal to zero yields = the relative density of the re-entrant honeycomb (6)model.
ρa L 2 2a + cosθ
H − sinθ
L L
3. Analytical
Because Model
we are adding an additional member to an existing structure, making the
value of a equal
Simple to zero yields
mechanics the relative
of materials density ofcan
techniques the re-entrant
be used to honeycomb
calculatemodel.
the elastic param
eters of the structure. By looking at the structure in Figure 1, it can be seen that the stru
3. Analytical Model
ture is symmetric along the X and Y axes. Hence the elastic parameters can be calculat
Simple mechanics of materials techniques can be used to calculate the elastic parame-
using a the
ters of quarter model
structure. since the
By looking strain
at the of the
structure structure
in Figure will
1, it can remain
be seen that the same in both i
the structure
stances because of the differences in lengths. The Poisson’s ratio and
is symmetric along the X and Y axes. Hence the elastic parameters can be calculated using Young’s modulus
thea quarter
x-direction
modelare denoted
since the strainbyof𝒗the
𝒙 and 𝑬𝒙 , respectively,
structure will remain theandsamefor the y-direction
in both instances by
and 𝑬𝒚 . The shear modulus is denoted by 𝐆. It is assumed that the structure is located
because of the differences in lengths. The Poisson’s ratio and Young’s modulus in the
x-direction are denoted by v and E x , respectively, and for the y-direction by vy and Ey .
the middle of the lattice to xavoid boundary effects. Three types of deformations are co
The shear modulus is denoted by G. It is assumed that the structure is located in the middle
sidered for the model; these include flexural/bending
of the lattice to avoid boundary effects. Three types of deformations deformations, shear deformation
are considered for
and
theaxial
model;deformations. The structure is deformations,
these include flexural/bending first loaded in both
shear principal axes,
deformations, one at a tim
and axial
todeformations.
calculate theThe elastic parameters
structure in the
is first loaded in respective
both principaldirection, then
axes, one at a shear
a time, load is appli
to calculate
tothe elastic parameters
calculate the shear in the respective
modulus of thedirection,
structure. then a shear load is applied to calculate
the shear modulus of the structure.
3.1. X-Direction
3.1. X-Direction
The
Thefree
free body diagram
body diagram (FBD)
(FBD) of the
of the structure
structure underunder loading
loading in the x-direction
in the x-direction is given is giv
inin
Figure
Figure2.
2.

Figure
Figure2.2.Free
Free body diagramforfor
body diagram loading
loading in x-direction.
in the the x-direction.
Materials 2022, 15, 8022 5 of 20

The bending deflection of the re-entrant member consists of the bending caused by
the force P and the deflection caused as a result of the moment induced in the horizontal
member, and it can be calculated as [26]:

PL3 sinθ  a 
δf X = 6 +1 (7)
12Es I L

The bending deflection caused due to moment M on member 2–3 is:

PLa2 sinθ
δ f aX = (8)
2Es I

The shear deflection δsix caused in the inclined member can be calculated by [10]:
 2
PL3 sinθ t
δsiX = (2.4 + 1.5vs ) (9)
12Es I L

The axial deformation of the inclined member can be calculated as follows [27]:

PLcosθ
δaiX = (10)
Es bt

Similarly, the deformations for the horizontal members can be calculated by [27]:

2Pa
δahX = (11)
Es bt

The total deflection (δxx ) of the structure in the x-direction equals:

δxx = δ f x sinθ + δsix sinθ + δaix cosθ + δahx (12)

After simplifying, the equation becomes

 2 !
PL3 sinθ 2

a 1 1 a t
δxx = 1 + 6 + 2.4 + 1.5vs + 2
+ 2
(13)
12Es I L tanθ sinθ L L

The total deflection (δxx ) of the structure in the y-direction equals:

δxy = δ f x cosθ + δsix cosθ + δ f aX (14)

 2 !
PL3 sinθcosθ a t 1  a 2
δxy = 1 + 6 + (2.4 + 1.5vs ) + (15)
12Es I L L cosθ L

Strain is defined as the ratio of the deflections of a material to its un-deformed length.
Hence the strain exx in the x-direction becomes [28]:

δxx
exx = (16)
2a + Lcosθ
"  2 #
PL2 sinθ 2

a 1 1 a t
exx =
1 + 6 + 2.4 + 1.5vs + + (17)
12Es I 2 La + cosθ L tanθ 2 sinθ 2 L L

Similarly, the strain exx in the y-direction [28]:

δxy
exy = (18)
H − Lsinθ
Materials 2022, 15, 8022 6 of 20

"  2 #
PL2 sinθcosθ a t 1  a 2
exy =   1 + 6 + (2.4 + 1.5vs ) + (19)
12Es I HL − sinθ L L cosθ L

The Poisson’s ratio is the ratio of lateral direction strain to the strain in the direction of
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
the applied force. Hence the Poisson’s ratio for loading in the x-direction equals [28]: 6 of 20

exy
vx = − (20)
e
2𝑎 𝑎 xx 𝑡 1 𝑎
( + 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 h 1 + 6 𝐿 + (2.4 + 1.5𝑣 )
𝐿 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃
𝐿i 
𝐿
𝑣 = − 2a + cosθ
cosθ 
 2 a 2
1 + 6 La + (2.4 + 1.5vs ) Lt + cosθ
1 (21)
L𝐻 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃)𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 𝑎  1 1 L 𝑎 𝑡i

vx = − 𝐿( 1 + 6 + 2.4 + 1.5𝑣 + + (21)
− sinθ sinθ  1 + 6 a𝐿+ 2.4 + 1.5v + 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃 a 𝐿t 2𝐿 
+ 1𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃
  h
H 1


L L s tanθ 2 sinθ 2 L L
The Young’s modulus for loading in the x-direction is defined as [28]:
The Young’s modulus for loading in the x-direction is defined as [28]:
𝜎
𝐸 =σ (22)
Ex = 𝜀
xx
(22)
ε yy
2𝑎
𝑡  + 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 1
𝐸 = 𝐸 t 3 𝐿 2a + cosθ

 

𝐻 L (23)
Ex = Es 𝐿  𝜃 1 h+ 6 𝑎 + 2.4  + 1.5𝑣 + 1 + 1 𝑎 𝑡
i
1 
 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 𝑠𝑖𝑛 (23)
L 𝐿 H − sinθ sin2 θ  1 +𝐿6 a + 2.4 + 1.5v 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃+ 1 +𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 1 𝐿a 𝐿t 2 
L L s tanθ 2 sinθ 2 L L

3.2. Y-Direction
The FBD of a quarter structure under loading in the y-direction
y-direction is
is given
given in
in Figure
Figure 3.
3.

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Free
Free body
body diagram
diagram for
for loading
loading in the y-direction.
in the y-direction.

The bending deflection caused in the re-entrant member can

can be
be calculated
calculated as
as [28]
[28]
𝑊𝐿3 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃
𝛿 ==W L cosθ (24)
(24)
12𝐸
12Es I 𝐼
δrY

The deflection caused as a result of moment My2-3 equals [28]

𝑊𝑎𝐿 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃
𝛿 = (25)
2𝐸 𝐼
The deflection of the horizontal member 4–5 is
𝑊𝑎 𝑊𝑎 𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃
𝛿 = + (26)
2𝐸 𝐼 2𝐸 𝐼
Materials 2022, 15, 8022 7 of 20

The deflection caused as a result of moment My2-3 equals [28]

WaL2 cosθ
δrmY = (25)
2Es I

The deflection of the horizontal member 4–5 is

Wa3 Wa2 Lcosθ

δhmY = + (26)
2Es I 2Es I

The shear deflection of the structure can be calculated as [10]:

 2
W L3 cosθ t
δsrY = (2.4 + 1.5vs ) (27)
12Es I L

Moreover, the axial deformation of the re-entrant member can be calculated by [28]

W Lsinθ
δarY = (28)
Es bt

Similarly, the axial deformation in the vertical members can be calculated by [28]

WH
δavY = (29)
Es bt

The total deflection of the horizontal members can be calculated as follows [28]:

Wa3
δhY = (30)
6Es I

The total deformation in the y-direction can be calculated by

δyy = δrY cosθ + δsrY cosθ + δarY sinθ + δrmY cosθ + δhmY + δavY (31)

After simplification, we get

"  2 #
PL3 cos2 θ  a 2 1  a 3 1 
a 1 H 1 t
δyy = 1+6 +6 +8 + 2.4 + 1.5vs + + (32)
12Es I L L cosθ L cos2 θ tan2 θ L cos2 θ L

Similarly, for deflections in the x-direction, we get

"  2 #
PL3 sinθcosθ a  a 2 1  a 3 1 t
δyx = 1+6 +2 +2 + (2.4 + 1.5vs ) (33)
12Es I L L cosθ L sinθcosθ L

The strain eyy in the y-direction equals

δyy
eyy = (34)
H − Lsinθ

"  2 #
F2 L3 cosθ 2  a 2 1  a 3 1 
a 1 H 1 t
eyy = 1+6 +6 +8 2
+ 2.4 + 1.5vs + 2
+ 2
(35)
12Es I ( H − Lsinθ ) L L cosθ L cos θ tan θ L cos θ L

The strain eyx in the x-direction is

δyx
eyx = (36)
2a + Lcosθ
Materials 2022, 15, 8022 8 of 20

"  2 #
F2 L3 cosθsinθ a  a 2 1  a 3 1 t
eyx = 1+6 +2 +2 + (3.4 + 1.5vs ) (37)
12Es I (2a + Lcosθ ) L L cosθ L sinθcosθ L

Using the ratio of the two strains, the Poisson’s ratio vy for loading in the y-direction
in normalized form can be calculated as follows:
eyx
vy = − (38)
exx

   h
2 1
3 1
2 i 
H
L − sinθ sinθ
 1 + 6 La + 2 La cosθ + 2 La sinθcosθ + (3.4 + 1.5vs ) Lt 
vy = − (39)
2 La + cosθ cosθ  1 + 6 a

h   i
t 2

2 1
3
+ 6 La cosθ + 8 La cos12 θ + 2.4 + 1.5vs + tan12 θ + HL cos12 θ


L L

Young’s modulus Ey can be calculated using the stress σyy and strain eyy in the
y-direction:
σyy
Ey = (40)
eyy

   
H
 3
t L − sinθ 1
Ey = Es a

h   i (41)
L 2 L + cosθ cos2 θ 1 + 6 a + 6 a 2 1 a 3 1 1 H 1 t 2




L L cosθ +8 L cos2 θ
+ 2.4 + 1.5vs + tan2 θ
+ L cos2 θ L

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
For initial analysis, two commercial software were used (Solidworks simulation suite
and Abaqus) to carry out the FEA of the structure. There was no variation in results for both
software. For ease of modeling and the faster ability to perform multiple design studies, the
Solidworks simulation suite was chosen for the FEA. A linear static study was performed
to calculate the deflections of the structure. The shell-type element was used. A mesh size
of 0.5 mm was used for all the studies conducted. For the FEA of such cellular structures,
to avoid edge and size effects during deformation, it is recommended to use a minimum of
four unit cells [12]. In this study, a 5 × 5-unit cell array was considered, and the deflections
were measured at the center cell of the lattice. The center unit cell and boundary conditions
used in the FEA are shown in Figure 4. The center unit cell was drawn in different colors
and mentioned points to measure the deflection. The difference of these points divided by
the length of the cell in the respective direction gave the strain in that direction. The ratio
of the two strains provides us with Poisson’s ratio of the structure. The structure was set to
be fixed in both directions at one end, and a load was applied at the other end, replicating
the boundary conditions of a tensile test.

4.2. Samples Preparation and Experimental Procedures

A total of 10 test samples were manufactured from 3.75 mm acrylic sheets. Thickness
greater than that resulted in melting of the edges and sharp corners of the structure with
the laser cutting. Half of the samples were for testing the properties in the x-direction,
while the other half were for the y-direction. The parameters of the samples are shown
in Table 1. All the samples were laser cut from the same sheet of acrylic to achieve the
same material properties for each sample. In addition, five dog-bone-shaped samples
were manufactured from the same sheet using the dimensions provided by the standard
ISO 527-1 used for calculating the material properties of plastics. The laser-cut samples and
the hinged support are shown in Figure 5.
 the deflections were measured at the center cell of the lattice. The center unit cell and
boundary conditions used in the FEA are shown in Figure 4. The center unit cell was
drawn in different colors and mentioned points to measure the deflection. The difference
of these points divided by the length of the cell in the respective direction gave the strain
in that direction. The ratio of the two strains provides us with Poisson’s ratio of the struc-
Materials 2022, 15, 8022 9 of 20
ture. The structure was set to be fixed in both directions at one end, and a load was applied
at the other end, replicating the boundary conditions of a tensile test.

Figure
Figure 4.
4. Boundary
Boundary conditions
conditions for
for the
the FEA
FEA with
with points
points for
for measuring deflections.
measuring deflections.

4.2. Samples Preparation and Experimental Procedures

Table 1. Dimensions of the test samples.
A total of 10 test samples were manufactured from 3.75 mm acrylic sheets. Thickness
greater than that resulted in melting of the edges and sharp corners ofYoung’s
the structure with
Modulus
L H t b cutting.
the laser a Half of the
θ samples were for testing the properties in the x-direction,
H/L t/L a/L Es
mm mm mm
whilemm
the other half
mm
were for the
Degrees
y-direction. The parameters of the samples are
MPa
shown in
Table 1. All the samples were laser cut from the same sheet of acrylic to achieve the same
1.6 0.2
material properties for each sample. In addition, five dog-bone-shaped samples were
2.4 0.3
8 20 1.75 manufactured
3.75 from 60 sheet 2.25
the same 0.218
using the dimensions provided 1050
by the standard ISO
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3.2 0.4 9 of 20
527-1 used for calculating
4.0 the material properties of plastics.
0.5The laser-cut samples and
the hinged support are shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Laser-cut acrylic samples
Laser-cut acrylic samples for
for testing
testing loads
loads in
in both
both the
the xx and
and y-directions.
y-directions.

TableIn1.order
Dimensions of the test
to study samples.
effect of the horizontal member, all the variables were fixed, except
the length of the newly introduced strut a. The length is varied with 0.8 mm increments
Young’s Modu-
𝑳 𝑯in a/L𝒕 values
resulting 𝒂 from 0.2 mm
b that range 𝜽 to 0.5 mm with 0.1 mm increments. Each
𝑯/𝑳 𝒕/𝑳 𝒂/𝑳 lus$$$ 𝑬𝒔
mm mm mm mm mm Degrees MPa
0.2$$$
1.6$$$2.4$$$3. 0.3$$$
8 20 1.75 3.75 60 2.25 0.218 1050
Materials 2022, 15, 8022 10 of 20

sample was connected to a rectangular portion 120 mm in length and 20 mm in width. This
portion contains six holes for 8 mm bolts to pass through. The samples with a = 0.8 mm
(a/L = 0.1) showed clear manufacturing defects as it was too close to the edges of the
connecting struts and difficult to manufacture with the existing setup. Thus, they
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 were
of 20
excluded, and experimental results were discarded for those samples.
These 2D structures had to be tested with a tensile load, as the compressive load
would result in buckling and out-of-plane deformation. A customized mild steel mount
was designed to apply a uniform tension load to the structure, as shown in Figure 6. The
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
mount was designed as a two-piece assembly that can hold the variable thickness 10 of
of the
20
sample for future work.

Figure 6. (a) Custom mount for holding the structure and (b) tension testing setup.

Tensile testing of the samples was performed using an Autograph AGS-J tabletop
Universal Testing Machine (UTS). Tensile testing of the dog-bone samples was carried out
at different extension rates according to ISO 527-1 to determine the Young’s Modulus of
Figure
the
Figure 6.6.(a)
(a)Custom
material. Custom mount
mountfor
The results of holding
forthese the
tests
holding structure
thecan and
be seen
structure and (b)
in tension
Figure
(b) 7.testing
tension setup.
The strain
testing setup.rate is sensitive
for polymers since the molecular mobility of the polymer chains becomes stiffer with the
Tensile
Tensile
increment intesting
testing of
ofthe
strain rate the samples
[29].samples was
wasperformed
The deflection performed
rate for theusing
using an
anAutograph
modified re-entrantAGS-J
Autograph AGS-J tabletop
tabletop
structure spec-
Universal
imen was set at 10 mm/min, as this value shows less sensitivity to materials behavior.out
Universal Testing
Testing Machine
Machine (UTS).
(UTS). Tensile
Tensile testing
testing of
of the
the dog-bone
dog-bone samples
samples was
was carried
carried out
atatdifferent
different extension
extension rates
rates according
according totoISO
ISO 527-1
527-1 totodetermine
determine
The black color specimens were sprayed with a white dotted pattern to determine the
theYoung’s
Young’s Modulus
Modulus ofof
the
the material.
material. The
The results
results of
of these
these tests
tests can
can bebeseen
seen ininFigure
Figure
the deflections through image processing during the tensile tests. The experiment was7.
7. The
The strain
strainrate
rateis
issensitive
sensitive
for
forpolymers
polymers
filmed at 1080p since the
since
using amolecular
the molecular
DSLR mobility
camera at 30offrames
mobility the polymer
of the polymer
per chains
second. chains
Thebecomes stiffer
becomes
deflection with
stiffer
of the the
with
struc-
increment
the incrementin strain
in rate
strain [29].
rate The deflection
[29]. The rate
deflection for the
rate modified
for the
ture was analyzed by tracking the movement of each individual dot using a program, re-entrant
modified structure
re-entrant spec-
structure
imen was
specimen
GOM set
was
Correlate atset
10 mm/min,
at
[30].10 mm/min, as thisasvalue showsshows
this value less sensitivity to materials
less sensitivity behavior.
to materials behavior.
The black color specimens were sprayed with a white dotted pattern to determine
the deflections through image processing during the tensile tests. The experiment was
filmed at 1080p using a DSLR camera at 30 frames per second. The deflection of the struc-
ture was analyzed by tracking the movement of each individual dot using a program,
GOM Correlate [30].

Load vs.
Figure 7. Load vs. displacement
displacement graph
graph for
for acrylic
acrylic dog-bone
dog-bone samples.
samples.

5. Results and Discussion

The force vs. displacement results obtained for the structure under loading in the x-
and y-directions can be seen in Figure 8. As we increase the values of a/L, the structure
Figure 7. Load vs. displacement graph for acrylic dog-bone samples.
becomes more compliant at the expense of failure force.
5. Results and Discussion
 Materials 2022, 15, 8022 11 of 20

The black color specimens were sprayed with a white dotted pattern to determine the
deflections through image processing during the tensile tests. The experiment was filmed
at 1080p using a DSLR camera at 30 frames per second. The deflection of the structure
was analyzed by tracking the movement of each individual dot using a program, GOM
Correlate [30].

5. Results and Discussion

The force vs. displacement results obtained for the structure under loading in the x-
Materials
Materials2022,
2022,15,
15,x xFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW y-directions can be seen in Figure 8. As we increase the values of a/L, the 11
and 11ofof2020
structure
becomes more compliant at the expense of failure force.

Figure
Figure8.8.Force
Figure vs.
8.Force
Force displacement
vs.
vs. plot
displacement
displacement for
plot
plot loading
for
for ininin
loading
loading the x-direction.
the
thex-direction.
x-direction.

InInIn
the
the
thenext
nextsection,
next section,
section, a adetailed
adetailed comparison
detailed comparison
comparison ofofof
the
the
thevalues
values
values ofofof
Poisson’s
Poisson’s
Poisson’s ratios
ratiosininin
ratios both
both
both
principal
principal directions
principaldirections is given.
directionsisisgiven. However,
given.However, looking
However,looking at the
lookingatatthe test
thetest data
testdata from
datafrom Figures
fromFigures 8 and
Figures88and 9,
and9,9,wewe
we
can
can see
can see that
see thatthe
that thearea
thearea under
area under
under the graph
the
the graph
graph increases
increases
increases by increasing
by
by increasing
increasing thethe
the values
values
values ofofof
a/L,
a/L,suggesting
a/L, suggesting
suggesting
that
that the
that the structure
the structure
structure cancan
can absorb
absorb
absorb more energy
more
more energy
energy compared
compared
compared tototo
the re-entrant
the
the re-entrant
re-entrant honeycomb
honeycomb
honeycomb model.
model.
model.
Figure
Figure
Figure 1010compares
10 compares
compares thethe
the deflections
deflections
deflections ininin
bothboth
both the x−
x−
the
the and
x- and
and y-directions
y-directions
y-directions obtained
obtained
obtained byby
by FEA
FEA
FEA andand
and
testing results when overlapped with the image processing software.
testing results when overlapped with the image processing software. The behavior of theof
testing results when overlapped with the image processing The
software. behavior
The of
behavior the
structure
structure was
the structurewasalmost
almost the
thesame,
was almost exhibiting
the same,
same, the
theauxetic
exhibiting
exhibiting nature
the auxetic
auxetic nature ofofthe
nature structure,
theof and
andthe
the structure,
structure, and
the rel-the
rel-
ative
ative deflection
relative
deflection pattern
deflection
pattern ininboth
pattern cases
in both
both waswassimilar.
cases
cases was similar.
similar.

Figure
Figure9.9.Force
Figure vs.
9.Force
Force displacement
vs.
vs. plot
displacement
displacement for
plot
plot loading
for
for ininin
loading
loading the y-direction.
the
they-direction.
y-direction.
 Materials 2022, 15, 8022 12 of 20
Figure 9. Force vs. displacement plot for loading in the y-direction.

Figure 10. Deflection pattern between the tensile test and FEA for loading in (a,b) the x-direction
Figure 10. Deflection pattern between the tensile test and FEA for loading in (a,b) the x-direction and
als 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW and (c,d) y-direction. 12 of 20
(c,d) y-direction.

5.1. Effect on NPR with Different UC Parameters

5.1.1.with
5.1. Effect on NPR Loading in the
Different UCX-Direction
Parameters
5.1.1. Loading in theThex-direction
comparison between the values of NPR obtained using the mathematical model,
FEA, and the experimental testing is shown in Table 2 and Figure 11. The NPR obtained by
The comparison between the values of NPR obtained using the mathematical model,
all three methods exhibited close values and followed the same trend with approximately
FEA, and the experimental testing is shown in Table 2 and Figure 11. The NPR obtained
constant error margins. It is interesting to note that the modified structure’s auxetic
by all three methods exhibited close values and followed the same trend with approxi-
behavior increased with the added strut value. When the a/L ratio was increased from
mately constant error margins. It is interesting to note that the modified structure’s auxetic
0.2 to 0.5, the tensile test showed that the NPR enhanced by 127%, which is a significant
behavior increased with the added strut value. When the a/L ratio was increased from 0.2
improvement. The additional strut provides greater flexibility to the re-entrant strut to
to 0.5, the tensile test showed that the NPR enhanced by 127%, which is a significant im-
enhance the Poisson’s ratio in the x-direction.
provement. The additional strut provides greater flexibility to the re-entrant strut to en-
hance the Poisson’s
Table 2.ratio in the x-direction.
Comparison of Poisson’s ratio obtained from the mathematical model, FEA, and tensile
testing for loading in the x-direction.
Table 2. Comparison of Poisson’s ratio obtained from the mathematical model, FEA, and tensile
testing for loading in the x-direction.
a/L Mathematical Model FEA Tensile Test

a/L 0.2
Mathematical Model −0.45 FEA −0.46Tensile Test −0.51
0.2 0.3 −0.45 −0.61 −0.46 −0.62 −0.51 −0.67
0.3 0.4 −0.61 −0.82 −0.62 −0.83 −0.67 −0.89
0.4 0.5 −0.82 −1.06 −0.83 −1.08 −0.89 −1.16
0.5 −1.06 −1.08 −1.16

11. Poisson’s
Figureratio
Figure 11. Poisson’s obtained ratio
via aobtained via a mathematical
mathematical model,
model, FEA, and FEA,testing
tensile and tensile testing for loading in
for loading
in the x-direction.
the x-direction.

Once the FEA model was validated with the experimental results, a more detailed
comparison between the mathematical model and FEA was conducted by varying the
other parameters of the unit cell. In Figure 12, the comparison is performed by keeping
the angle 𝜽 constant at 60° while the value of H/L is varied. Even in the extended range,
 Materials 2022, 15, 8022 13 of 20

Once the FEA model was validated with the experimental results, a more detailed
comparison between the mathematical model and FEA was conducted by varying the
other parameters of the unit cell. In Figure 12, the comparison is performed by keeping
the angle θ constant at 60◦ while the value of H/L is varied. Even in the extended range,
the trends of both calculations followed the same pattern. Furthermore, it can be observed
that by reducing the value of H/L, the value of NPR increased. Reducing the value of H/L
means a reduction in the mass or relative density of the structure, which can be favorable
in certain scenarios. Setting the value of a/L equal to zero results in the structure becoming
a standard re-entrant honeycomb structure. Comparing the proposed structure with the
als 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 20
re-entrant honeycomb model, we can see a significant increase in auxeticity for varying
values of H/L.

Figure
Figure 12. Poisson’s Poisson’sfrom
12. obtained
ratio ratiothe
obtained
FEA andfrom the FEA and
mathematical mathematical
model for varyingmodel forx-varying H/L for
H/L for
direction loading.
x-direction loading.

On theinother
On the other hand, hand,
Figure in Figure
13, H/L is kept H/L is kept
13,constant, andconstant,
the angleand𝜽 the angle for
is varied θ is varied for an
range of a/L.
an extended range of a/L. The results suggested that decreasing the re-entrant angle re-angle resulted
extended The results suggested that decreasing the re-entrant
in an enhancement
sulted in an enhancement of NPR.of NPR. The mathematical
The mathematical model model started
started deviating
deviating fromfrom
thethe FEA when
approaching
FEA when approaching higher
higher re-entrant
re-entrant angles,
angles, butthe
but thetrend
trendremained
remainedthethesame,
same,andand the variation
remainedlow.
the variation remained low. Previously
Previously significant
significant gains
gains in
in NPR
NPR cancan be
be seen
seen compared
compared to to the re-entrant
honeycomb model across the
the re-entrant honeycomb model across the board. board.

5.1.2. Loading in the Y-Direction

The comparison between the values of NPR obtained using the mathematical model,
FEA, and the experimental testing is shown in Table 3 and Figure 14. A sharp contrast can
be observed here when compared to the NPR values when loading was in the x-direction.
The increment in a/L showed a counter impact on NPR. Interestingly, the absolute values
of NPR when the load was applied in the y-direction were high. During the tensile test,
when a/L was 0.2, the NPR when loading in the x- and y-directions was −0.51 and −1.41,
respectively. Therefore, high NPR can be achieved if the structure is oriented to apply
a unidirectional load in the y-direction. However, when the a/L value was 0.4, the NPR
value was approximately the same during tensile testing (NPRs when loading in the x-
and y-directions were −0.89 and −0.9, respectively). This was the limiting ratio for a/L;
after that, when the a/L equal to 0.5 was analyzed during tensile testing, the NPR was
higher for the x-direction rather than in y-direction loading (NPRs when loading in the x-
and y-directions were −1.16 and −0.72, respectively). These results are intriguing, as the
 Figure 12. Poisson’s ratio obtained from the FEA and mathematical model for varying H/L for x-
direction loading.

On the other hand, in Figure 13, H/L is kept constant, and the angle 𝜽 is varied for
Materials 2022, 15, 8022 14 of 20
an extended range of a/L. The results suggested that decreasing the re-entrant angle re-
sulted in an enhancement of NPR. The mathematical model started deviating from the
FEA when approaching higher re-entrant angles, but the trend remained the same, and
orthotropic
the variation remained unit
low. cell can exhibit
Previously isotropic
significant behavior
gains in NPR at
cancertain unit
be seen cell parameters.
compared to Here, in
the re-entrantthis case, it was
honeycomb θ constant
model at 60
across the degrees and a/L ' 0.4.
board.

Figure 13. Poisson’s

Figureratio Poisson’sfrom
13. obtained ratiothe
obtained from the
mathematical mathematical
model model
and FEA for and 𝜃FEA
varying for varying θ for x-
for x-di-
rection loadingdirection loading.

Figures 15 and 16 give a detailed comparison of NPR between the mathematical model
and FEA for different H/L and re-entrant angles. The results gave an insight into the effects
of these variables on NPR. As observed before, the trends exhibited by the mathematical
model corroborate the trend obtained from FEA. In both cases, it was observed that NPR
decreased as the length of the horizontal member increased. The NPR lost auxeticity rapidly
for smaller values of a/L but started leveling out at the extreme values of a/L.
Contrary to x-direction loading, here it can be observed that the NPR increased with
the value of H/L (see the arrow direction in Figure 15). Similarly, it can be noticed that
NPR increases as the re-entrant angle decreases (see the arrow direction in Figure 16).
Comparing the structure with the re-entrant honeycomb model, we can see that, in this
specific case, better NPR can be achieved using the re-entrant honeycomb model.

Table 3. Poisson’s ratio obtained from the mathematical model, FEA, and tensile testing for loading
in the y-direction.

a/L Mathematical Model FEA Tensile Test

0.2 −1.36 −1.46 −1.41
0.3 −1.1 −1.18 −1.12
0.4 −0.88 −0.94 −0.9
0.5 −0.7 −0.75 −0.72

5.1.3. Comparison of NPR

The combined effect on NPR calculated using the mathematical model for the variation
of H/L, a/L, and re-entrant angle for both loading directions is shown in Figure 17. In
general, when the loading was applied in the x-direction, the NPR was improved with low
values of H/L, re-entrant angle, and higher values of a/L. This was because the added strut
a is in the x-direction, and the lower value was favorable for the re-entrant strut to improve
NPR. In contrast to the x-direction loading, the NPR showed mixed behavior when the
 Table 3. Poisson’s ratio obtained from the mathematical model, FEA, and tensile testing for loading
in the y-direction.

a/L Mathematical Model FEA Tensile Test

0.2
Materials 2022, 15, 8022 −1.36 −1.46 −1.41 15 of 20
0.3 −1.1 −1.18 −1.12
0.4 −0.88 −0.94 −0.9
loading was applied in the y-direction. NPR improved with either low values of H/L and
0.5 −0.7
high values of −0.75angle and low value of−0.72
a/L or high values of re-entrant a/L.

OR PEER REVIEW 14. Poisson’s 15 of 20

Figure
Figure 14. Poisson’s ratio obtained viaratio
the obtained via the mathematical
mathematical model, FEA, model,
andFEA, and tensile
tensile testingtesting for loading
for loading
in the y-direction.
in the y-direction.

Figures 15 and 16 give a detailed comparison of NPR between the mathematical

model and FEA for different H/L and re-entrant angles. The results gave an insight into
the effects of these variables on NPR. As observed before, the trends exhibited by the
mathematical model corroborate the trend obtained from FEA. In both cases, it was ob-
served that NPR decreased as the length of the horizontal member increased. The NPR
lost auxeticity rapidly for smaller values of a/L but started leveling out at the extreme
values of a/L.

Figure 15. Comparison Figure 15. Comparison

of Poisson’s ratioofobtained
Poisson’s from
ratio obtained
the FEA from themathematical
and FEA and mathematical
modelmodel for varying
for vary-
H/L
ing H/L for y-direction for y-direction loading.
loading.
 Materials 2022, 15, 8022 16 of 20
Figure 15. Comparison of Poisson’s ratio obtained from the FEA and mathematical model for vary-
ing H/L for y-direction loading.

Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 20

strut a is in the x-direction, and the lower value was favorable for the re-entrant strut to
improve NPR. In contrast to the x-direction loading, the NPR showed mixed behavior
ofComparison
Figure 16.
Figure 16. Comparison of Poisson’s
Poisson’s ratio obtained ratio
fromobtained
the FEA from the FEA and mathematical
and mathematical model for varying
model for vary-
when
ing angle θ for angle
the loading was
θ for y-direction
y-direction
applied
loading. loading.
in the y-direction. NPR improved with either low values
of H/L and high values of a/L or high values of re-entrant angle and low value of a/L.
Contrary to x-direction loading, here it can be observed that the NPR increased with
the value of H/L (see the arrow direction in Figure 15). Similarly, it can be noticed that
NPR increases as the re-entrant angle decreases (see the arrow direction in Figure 16).
Comparing the structure with the re-entrant honeycomb model, we can see that, in this
specific case, better NPR can be achieved using the re-entrant honeycomb model.

5.1.3. Comparison of NPR

The combined effect on NPR calculated using the mathematical model for the varia-
tion of H/L, a/L, and re-entrant angle for both loading directions is shown in Figure 17. In
general, when the loading was applied in the x-direction, the NPR was improved with
low values of H/L, re-entrant angle, and higher values of a/L. This was because the added

Figure
Figure17.17.NPR
NPRforfor different values of
different values of H/L,
H/L,a/L,
a/L,and
andre-entrant
re-entrantangle
angle
forfor (a,b)
(a,b) x-direction
x-direction loading
loading and
and
(c,d)(c,d) y-direction
y-direction loading.
loading.

5.2.Young’s
5.2. Young’sModulus
ModulusofofthetheStructure
Structure
Theratios
The ratiosofofYoung’s
Young’smodulus
modulusforforrespective
respectiveloading
loadingdirection
directionand
andthe
thesolid
solidmaterial
material
of the structure, calculated by the mathematical model, are shown in Figure 18 (θ ==60°)
of the structure, calculated by the mathematical model, are shown in Figure 18 (θ 60◦ )
andFigure
and Figure1919(H/L
(H/Lisis2.5).
2.5).There
Therewas
wasaasignificant
significantimprovement
improvementininNPRNPRininboth
bothloading
loading
directions.The
directions. Theunit
unitcell
cellimproved
improvedthethestrength
strengthofofthe
thematerial
materialby
byadding
addingthethestrut
strutand
and
makingititstiffer.
making stiffer.For
Forx-direction
x-directionloading,
loading,increasing
increasingthe
thelength
lengthof
ofadditional strutaaor
additionalstrut orratio
ratio
a/L did not show a considerable variation in enhancement in the strength. However, lower
values of a/L showed a stiffer behavior of the structure. The additional strut a is parallel
along the x-direction, and thus the bending effect was low when the load was applied in
the same direction. As a result, the variation in Ex/Es was also low.
 Materials 2022, 15, 8022 17 of 20

a/L did not show a considerable variation in enhancement in the strength. However, lower
values of a/L showed a stiffer behavior of the structure. The additional strut a is parallel
als 2022,
als 2022, 15,
15, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW along the x-direction, and thus the bending effect was low when the17 17 of 20
load
of 20
was applied in
the same direction. As a result, the variation in Ex/Es was also low.

Figure 18.
Figure Figure
18. Young’s
Young’s 18. Young’s
modulus
modulus themodulus
in the
in in for
x-direction
x-direction the x-direction
for different for different
different values
values of H/L
of values
H/L and
and of H/L angle.
re-entrant
re-entrant and re-entrant angle.
angle.

Figure 19.
Figure 19. Young’s
Young’s modulus
modulus
Figure in they-direction
in
19. Young’s they-direction for
modulus infor different values
different values
they-direction of H/L
of H/L and
and
for different re-entrant
re-entrant
values angle
of H/Langle (inset
(inset
and re-entrant angle (inset
shows a portion of
shows a portionshows the extreme
of the aextreme values).
portionvalues).
of the extreme values).

5.3. Effect
5.3. Effect of of Relative
RelativeOnDensity
the other
Density on NPR
on NPR
hand, the strut is perpendicular to the y-direction and can be subjected
The to
relative extensive
density
The relative density and NPR ofbending
and NPR during
of the the tensile
the structure
structure forload.
for Therefore,
different
different valuessignificant
values of a/L
of a/L during variation
during load- was observed
load-
ing in both with
directionsthe increasing
(H/L is 2.5 a/L
and θratio
= or
60°), varying
calculated re-entrant
from the
ing in both directions (H/L is 2.5 and θ = 60°), calculated from the mathematical model, is angle. However,
mathematical model,the strength in the
is
shown in
shown in Figurey-direction
Figure 20.20. The is significantly
The relative
relative density
density is higher
is the than
the ratio
ratio of in the
of the x-direction.
the volumes
volumes of of the In fact,
the structure the
structure to structure
to the
the showed
total volume
total stiffness
volume itit occupies in the y-direction
occupies ifif itit is
is solid.
solid. It for
It can
can be smaller
be seen values
seen that
that with of
with thea/L, which
the increasing diminished
increasing lengthlength of with
of ad-
ad- the a/L ratio
ditional strut being
strut a,
a, the approximately
the relative
relative density more
density decreases than 1.25.
decreases while Nonetheless,
while the
the NPR a tradeoff
NPR significantly for
significantly increasesthe strength
increases in in x-
x- can be made
ditional
direction in both
loading. directions
There is a depending
reverse effect on y-direction
on the application of the
loading, structure.
but the variation is not
direction loading. There is a reverse effect on y-direction loading, but the variation is not
high. ItIt can
high. can bebe concluded
concluded thatthat for for aa given
given thickness
thickness ofof the
the structure
structure inside
inside aa fixed
fixed volume,
volume,
higher NPR
higher NPR is is possible
possible while
while decreasing
decreasing the the overall
overall mass
mass of of the
the structure
structure for for loading
loading in in
the x-direction only. For comparison, the relative density and
the x-direction only. For comparison, the relative density and NPR for both directional NPR for both directional
loading for
loading for aa standard
standard re-entrant
re-entrant honeycomb
honeycomb structure
structure areare also
also shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 20. 20. It
It can
can
 Materials 2022, 15, 8022 18 of 20

5.3. Effect of Relative Density on NPR

The relative density and NPR of the structure for different values of a/L during loading
in both directions (H/L is 2.5 and θ = 60◦ ), calculated from the mathematical model, is
shown in Figure 20. The relative density is the ratio of the volumes of the structure to
the total volume it occupies if it is solid. It can be seen that with the increasing length of
additional strut a, the relative density decreases while the NPR significantly increases in
x-direction loading. There is a reverse effect on y-direction loading, but the variation is not
high. It can be concluded that for a given thickness of the structure inside a fixed volume,
als 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW higher NPR is possible while decreasing the overall mass of the structure 18 of 20for loading in
the x-direction only. For comparison, the relative density and NPR for both directional
loading for a standard re-entrant honeycomb structure are also shown in Figure 20. It
can added
be observed that be observed that added
strut highly strut highly
improved improved
the relative theand
density relative density im-
significantly and significantly
improved NPR in x-direction
proved NPR in x-direction loading. loading.

Figure
Figure 20. Relative 20. Relative
density and NPR density and NPR
for loading for loading
in both in both directions.
directions.

6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions
The modified re-entrant honeycomb auxetic structure with enhanced directional prop-
The modified re-entrant honeycomb auxetic structure with enhanced directional
erties is proposed and analyzed through a mathematical model, FEA, and experimental test.
properties is proposed and analyzed through a mathematical model, FEA, and experi-
The modification was made by adding a strut connecting the vertical and re-entrant mem-
mental test. The modification was made by adding a strut connecting the vertical and re-
bers of the re-entrant honeycomb unit cell. A detailed analytical model has been derived
entrant members of the re-entrant honeycomb unit cell. A detailed analytical model has
that considers bending, shear, and axial deformations to calculate Poisson’s ratio and other
been derived that considers bending, shear, and axial deformations to calculate Poisson’s
properties. Tensile tests were performed on laser−cut samples to validate the mathematical
ratio and other properties. Tensile tests were performed on laser−cut samples to validate
and FEA models. All three methods showed close agreement with the proposed structure’s
the mathematical and FEA models. All three methods showed close agreement with the
negative Poisson’s ratio (NPR). The structure was analyzed by applying the loading in
proposed structure’s negative Poisson’s ratio (NPR). The structure was analyzed by ap-
two principal directions on the doubly symmetrical unit cell. When the loading was ap-
plying the loading
plied in
in two principal directions
the x-direction, the NPRon wastheimproved
doubly symmetrical
with lower unit cell.
values ofWhen
H/L and re-entrant
the loading was angle, and higher values of a/L. On the other hand, when the loading isofapplied in the
applied in the x-direction, the NPR was improved with lower values
H/L and re-entrant angle, the
y-direction, andNPRhigher values
showed of a/L.
mixed On the other
behavior. hand, when
NPR improved thea loading
with combination of either
is applied in low
the y-direction, the NPR showed mixed behavior. NPR improved
values of H/L and high values of a/L or high values of re-entrant angle with and
a low values
combination of either
of a/L. low values of H/L and high values of a/L or high values of re-entrant
angle and low values Forof a/L. of values of ‘a/L’, the relative density of the structure decreases with the
a range
For a range of values
increasing value of ‘a/L’, theArelative
of ‘a’. density density
lower relative of the structure
suggested decreases
that thewith the utilized the
structure
increasing value of ‘a’. A
occupied lower more
volume relative density suggested
effectively, meaning thatthat it
the structure
could utilized
provide the NPR-to-mass
a better
occupied volume more effectively, meaning that it could provide a better NPR-to-mass
ratio. To relate the relative density to NPR, the value of ‘a’ should be increased to obtain
ratio. To relatebetter
the relative
relativedensity
densitytoand
NPR, anthe value in
increase of Poisson’s
‘a’ shouldratio
be increased to obtain at the cost of
in the x-direction
better relative density and an increase in Poisson’s ratio in the x-direction at the cost of a
decrease in Poisson’s ratio in the y-direction. To improve its properties, the structure can
be further modified by increasing the thickness of struts or adding cross-link members,
making it a hybrid structure at the cost of losing NPR.
Materials 2022, 15, 8022 19 of 20

a decrease in Poisson’s ratio in the y-direction. To improve its properties, the structure can
be further modified by increasing the thickness of struts or adding cross-link members,
making it a hybrid structure at the cost of losing NPR.
The proposed structure could have many applications in areas that require a greater
NPR. For example, filters, energy absorption, lightweight structures, etc. It would also be
interesting to analyze the bi−directional loading on the proposed auxetic cellular structure
to analyze the combined loading effect.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.Z.K. and E.R.I.M.; Formal analysis, F.M.; Funding
acquisition, Y.H.A.; Investigation, A.A.Z. and H.A.; Methodology, S.Z.K., A.A.Z. and Y.H.A.; Project
administration, S.Z.K. and A.A.Z.; Resources, S.Z.K. and H.A.; Software, F.M.; Validation, S.Z.K. and
Y.H.A.; Writing—original draft, F.M. and S.Z.K.; Writing—review & editing, S.Z.K., E.R.I.M. and H.A.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Islamic University of Madinah, Tamayuz−2 grant number 703.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: There is no external data available with this work. All data, models,
and code generated or used during the study appear in the submitted article.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their appreciation for the support provided
by the Scientific Research Deanship, Islamic University of Madinah, through the research program
Tamayuz-2 grant number 703.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflict of interest with any entity for producing and
working on this paper.

References
1. Yang, W.; Li, Z.-M.; Shi, W.; Xie, B.-H.; Yang, M.-B. Review on auxetic materials. J. Mater. Sci. 2004, 39, 3269–3279. [CrossRef]
2. Ren, X.; Das, R.; Tran, P.; Ngo, T.D.; Xie, Y.M. Auxetic metamaterials and structures: A review. Smart Mater. Struct.
2018, 27, 23001. [CrossRef]
3. Bronder, S.; Herter, F.; Röhrig, A.; Bähre, D.; Jung, A. Design Study for Multifunctional 3D Re-entrant Auxetics. Adv. Eng. Mater.
2022, 24, 2100816. [CrossRef]
4. Zhang, J.; Zhu, X.; Yang, X.; Zhang, W. Transient nonlinear responses of an auxetic honeycomb sandwich plate under impact
loads. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2019, 134, 103383. [CrossRef]
5. Kelkar, P.; Kim, H.S.; Cho, K.-H.; Kwak, J.Y.; Kang, C.-Y.; Song, H.-C. Cellular Auxetic Structures for Mechanical Metamaterials: A
Review. Sensors 2020, 20, 3132. [CrossRef]
6. Nguyen, N.V.; Nguyen-Xuan, H.; Nguyen, T.N.; Kang, J.; Lee, J. A comprehensive analysis of auxetic honeycomb sandwich plates
with graphene nanoplatelets reinforcement. Compos. Struct. 2021, 259, 113213. [CrossRef]
7. Donoghue, J.P.; Alderson, K.L.; Evans, K.E. The fracture toughness of composite laminates with a negative Poisson’s ratio. Phys.
Status Solidi (b) 2009, 246, 2011–2017. [CrossRef]
8. Choi, J.B.; Lakes, R.S. Fracture toughness of re-entrant foam materials with a negative Poisson’s ratio: Experiment and analysis.
Int. J. Fract. 1996, 80, 73–83. [CrossRef]
9. Yao, Y.; Yuan, H.; Huang, H.; Liu, J.; Wang, L.; Fan, Y. Biomechanical design and analysis of auxetic pedicle screw to resist
loosening. Comput. Biol. Med. 2021, 133, 104386. [CrossRef]
10. Cellular Solids by Lorna J. Gibson. Available online: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cellular-solids/BC25789552BAA8
E3CAD5E1D105612AB5 (accessed on 19 September 2019).
11. Masters, I.; Evans, K. Models for the elastic deformation of honeycombs. Compos. Struct. 1996, 35, 403–422. [CrossRef]
12. Yang, L.; Harrysson, O.; West, H.; Cormier, D. Mechanical properties of 3D re-entrant honeycomb auxetic structures realized via
additive manufacturing. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2015, 69–70, 475–490. [CrossRef]
13. Khan, S.Z.; Masood, S.; Cottam, R. Mechanical properties in tensile loading of H13 re-entrant honeycomb auxetic structure
manufactured by direct metal deposition. MATEC Web Conf. 2015, 34, 01004. [CrossRef]
14. Berinskii, I. Elastic networks to model auxetic properties of cellular materials. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2016, 115–116, 481–488. [CrossRef]
15. Khan, K.A.; Al-Mansoor, S.; Khan, S.Z. Piezoelectric Metamaterial with Negative and Zero Poisson’s Ratios. J. Eng. Mech.
2019, 145. [CrossRef]
16. Shen, L.; Wang, Z.; Wang, X.; Wei, K. Negative Poisson’s ratio and effective Young’s modulus of a vertex-based hierarchical
re-entrant honeycomb structure. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2021, 206, 106611. [CrossRef]
Materials 2022, 15, 8022 20 of 20

17. Khan, S.Z.; Mustahsan, F.; Mahmoud, E.R.; Masood, S. A novel modified re-entrant honeycomb structure to enhance the auxetic
behavior: Analytical and numerical study by FEA. Mater. Today: Proc. 2021, 39, 1041–1045. [CrossRef]
18. Al-Rifaie, H.; Novak, N.; Vesenjak, M.; Ren, Z.; Sumelka, W. Fabrication and Mechanical Testing of the Uniaxial Graded Auxetic
Damper. Materials 2022, 15, 387. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Sigmund, O.; Torquato, S. Design of smart composite materials using topology optimization. Smart Mater. Struct. 1999, 8, 365–379.
[CrossRef]
20. Fu, M.-H.; Chen, Y.; Hu, L.-L. A novel auxetic honeycomb with enhanced in-plane stiffness and buckling strength. Compos. Struct.
2017, 160, 574–585. [CrossRef]
21. Harkati, E.; Daoudi, N.; Bezazi, A.; Haddad, A.; Scarpa, F. In-plane elasticity of a multi re-entrant auxetic honeycomb. Compos.
Struct. 2017, 180, 130–139. [CrossRef]
22. Bezazi, A.; Scarpa, F.; Remillat, C. A novel centresymmetric honeycomb composite structure. Compos. Struct. 2005, 71, 356–364.
[CrossRef]
23. Zhu, Y.; Luo, Y.; Gao, D.; Yu, C.; Ren, X.; Zhang, C. In-plane elastic properties of a novel re-entrant auxetic honeycomb with
zigzag inclined ligaments. Eng. Struct. 2022, 268, 114788. [CrossRef]
24. Wu, W.; Liu, P.; Kang, Z. A novel mechanical metamaterial with simultaneous stretching- and compression-expanding property.
Mater. Des. 2021, 208, 109930. [CrossRef]
25. Zhang, X.G.; Jiang, W.; Zhang, Y.; Luo, C.; Zhang, X.Y.; Han, D.; Hao, J.; Teng, X.C.; Xie, Y.M.; Ren, X. Energy absorption properties
of composite tubes with hexagonal and re-entrant honeycomb fillers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 356, 129298. [CrossRef]
26. Timoshenko, S.; Goodier, J.N. Theory of Elasticity, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: Auckland, New Zealand, 1970.
27. Elementary Continuum Mechanics for Everyone. Available online: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-007-5766-0
(accessed on 18 October 2022).
28. Ghavami, P. Mechanics of Materials; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015. [CrossRef]
29. Hussein, M. Effects of strain rate and temperature on the mechanical behavior of carbon black reinforced elastomers based on
butyl rubber and high molecular weight polyethylene. Results Phys. 2018, 9, 511–517. [CrossRef]
30. GOM Correlate Pro: Strains and Displacements from Motion Pictures. Available online: https://www.gom.com/en/products/
gom-suite/gom-correlate-pro (accessed on 6 March 2022).