The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2018) 99:2425–2440

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2637-y

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Tensile properties of an auxetic structure with re-entrant and chiral

features—a finite element study
Amer Alomarah 1,2 & Dong Ruan 1 & Syed Masood 1

Received: 15 March 2018 / Accepted: 22 August 2018 / Published online: 4 September 2018
# Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
A re-entrant chiral auxetic (RCA) structure is a new structure, which comprises three topologies: re-entrant, trichiral and anti-
trichiral. The aim of this study is to numerically investigate the influences of geometrical parameters of a RCA unit cell on the in-
plane tensile properties. Finite element (FE) models were developed using commercial software, ABAQUS 6.11–2, and verified
by experimental results. Based on the verified FE models, a parametric study was performed to examine the effects of geometrical
parameters on the stress–strain curve and Poisson’s ratio of a RCA structure. In order to reduce the variables studied, three
dimensionless groups of geometrical parameters were proposed. Results showed that the RCA structure predominantly deformed
by bending and stretching of walls as well as rotation of cylinders. The RCA structure displayed high stress, low strain and large
negative Poisson’s ratio when it was loaded in the X direction. On the other hand, the RCA structure exhibited low stress, high
strain and a transition from negative to positive Poisson’s ratio when it was loaded in the Y direction. The geometrical parameters
of the RCA structure had significant effects on its stress–strain curves and Poisson’s ratios. The findings of this study provide an
insight into the mechanical response of the RCA structure under uniaixal tensile loading.

Keywords Auxetic structure . In-plane tensile properties . Negative Poisson’s ratio . Finite element analysis . Re-entrant and chiral
features

1 Introduction conventional materials, auxetic materials exhibit a series of

Most engineering materials exhibit positive Poisson’s ratios
[1], i.e. they contract laterally when subjected to an axial tensile
load and they expand laterally when subjected to an axial com-
pressive load. In contrast, auxetic structures/materials (or meta-
materials) expand laterally when they are stretched axially or
contract laterally when they are compressed axially, displaying
negative Poisson’s ratios (NPR) [2, 3]. The first material with
NPR was reported in 1985 [4], but wide acceptance and rec-
ognition of this type of materials were from 1987 [5]. The term
“auxetic” was introduced in 1991 for the first time to describe
the characteristics of these materials [6]. Compared with
* Dong Ruan
druan@swin.edu.au
1 the same side. Tetrachiral honeycombs can also be classified in
Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology, Swinburne
University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia
2 mechanism of chiral honeycombs comes from wrapping and
Department of Mechanics, College of Engineering, Wasit University,
Al-Kut 52001, Iraq
superior properties including better indentation resistance,
shear modulus, fracture toughness, variable permeability and
energy absorption [7–10].
The most popular auxetic structures include chiral honey-
combs [11] and the re-entrant honeycomb [12, 13]. Chiral hon-
eycombs compose straight ligaments (ribs) that tangentially
connect to cylinders (nodes). Based on the coordinates or num-
ber of ligaments connecting to each cylinder, chiral honey-
combs are classified as trichiral honeycombs (3-coordinated)
shown in Fig. 1a, b, tetrachiral (4-coordinated) honeycombs
shown in Fig. 1c, d and hexachiral (6-coordinated) honey-
combs (not shown here) [14, 15]. Moreover, trichiral honey-
combs have two common configurations: trichiral configura-
tion shown in Fig. 1a where each adjacent cylinders are at-
tached to the connecting ligament/wall on opposite sides, and
anti-trichiral configuration shown in Fig. 1b where each adja-
cent cylinders are attached to the connecting ligament/wall on
a similar way and are shown in Fig. 1c, d. The deformation
unwrapping of the ligaments around the rotated nodes as a
2426 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 99:2425–2440

Fig. 1 Sketches of unit cell of: a trichiral honeycomb; b anti-trichiral honeycomb; c tetrachiral honeycomb; d anti-tetrachiral honeycomb; e re-entrant
honeycomb; f RCA structure (ligaments for trichiral and anti-trichiral topologies are indicated by green and red colours, respectively)

response to a compressive or tensile loading, respectively. This
behaviour leads to auxeticity of these structures. Despite sym-
metrical topology of chiral honeycombs, their auxetic effect is
relatively small. Poisson’s ratio of the 6-coordinated chiral hon-
eycomb was found to be approximately − 1 [16, 17]. On the
other hand, re-entrant honeycomb has straight and inclined
walls as shown in Fig. 1e. Due to its simplicity, adaptability
and ability to produce large negative Poisson’s ratio (up to − 4)
compared with other auxetic structures, extensive studies
[18–23] have been conducted on re-entrant honeycomb.
The attractive properties of auxetic structures have contrib-
uted to the incentive to develop advanced auxetic structures
with high performance. To date, many attempts have been
made to propose novel auxetic structures by combining geo-
metrical features of existing auxetic structures. For example,
the re-entrant hexagonal honeycomb was modified into a
cylinder-ligament chiral honeycomb [24]. Based on the hex-
agonal re-entrant honeycomb, two new structures (splined re-
entrant and stiffened re-entrant honeycombs) were developed
[25]. A new auxetic structure was put forward by embedding
the configuration of a rhombic auxetic structure into a re-
entrant honeycomb [26]. These innovative efforts triggered
the development of the current RCA structure, which incor-
porated the chiral feature in the re-entrant honeycomb [27].
The RCA structure has a lower density compared with the
corresponding re-entrant honeycomb that has identical

Table 1 Relevant past research on auxetic structures

Structures Loading Methods used and properties investigated

Chiral honeycomb
Re-entrant honeycomb
Rotating rigid units
RCA
Compression • Poisson’s ratio and Young’s modulus (FEA in [14, 17, 28], experiments in [24]).
• Effects of geometrical parameters (α = L1/r ratio, β = t/r ratio) on Poisson’s ratio and
Young’s modulus (FEA in [14, 24]).
• Effects of geometrical parameters (α = L1/r ratio) on Poisson’s ratio, shear modulus
and deformation mode (analytical model in [15]).
Compression • Mechanical performance of modified unit cell (experiment, FEA and analytical model in [26]).
• Young’s modulus and failure strength (experiments in [29]).
• Effects of geometrical parameters (H, L1 and inclination angle) on Poisson’s ratio
(Analytical model in [13]), on shear properties (experiments in [30]).
Tension • Effects of loading direction and geometrical parameters on deformation mode,
stress–strain curves and Poisson’s ratio (experiment and FEA in [31]).
• Tensile properties and Poisson’s ratio of modified unit cell (experiments and analytical model in [32]).
Tension • Effects of geometrical parameters on Poisson’s ratio (analytical model and FEA in [33, 34]).
• Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio and shear modulus (experiments and FEA in [35]).
Tension • Effects of parent material and loading direction on the deformation mode,
stress–strain curve and Poisson’s ratio (experiments in [27]).
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 99:2425–2440 2427

Fig. 2 Manufactured aluminium

RCA samples [27] to be loaded in
the a Y direction; b X direction; c
quasi-static true stress–strain
curves to parent material
(aluminium alloy 6061)

400
350
300

True stress (MPa)

250
200
150
Test-1
100 Test-2
50 Test-3
Test-4
0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21
(c)
True strain

geometrical parameters such as unit cell wall length and incli- brief summary of auxetic structures studied previously is il-
nation angle [27]. The RCA structure possessed higher stress lustrated in Table 1.
and more evident auxetic effect compared with re-entrant hon- Mechanical properties of auxetic structures can be tuned by
eycombs when they were tensioned in the X direction [27]. A tailoring the geometrical parameters of their unit cells. Studies

Table 2 Material properties of aluminium (6061) used in the FEA [27]

Material Elastic modulus (GPa) Poisson’s ratio Density (g/cm3) Yield stress (MPa) Ultimate stress (MPa)

Aluminium (6061) 65 (GPa) 0.33 2.7 210 350

Fig. 3 a In-plane dimensions of a RCA sample and locations of selected direction; c loading and boundary conditions of FE model for a RCA
points to calculate the axial and lateral displacements; b loading and sample loaded in the Y direction
boundary conditions of FE model for a RCA sample loaded in the X
2428 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 99:2425–2440

Table 3 Parameters investigated in the current FEA

Studied parameters

Three dimensionless groups One parameter

α = (L1/r) β = (t1/r) λ = (H/L1) θ0
2.3 = 9/3.9 0.16 = 0.45/2.75 1.8 = 18/10 30°
3.27 = 9/2.75 0.18 = 0.5/2.75 2.0 = 18/9 40°
4.5 = 9/2 0.20 = 0.55/2.75 2.2 = 18/8.2 50°
6.0 = 9/1.5 0.22 = 0.6/2.75 2.4 = 18/7.5 60°
9.0 = 9/1 0.24 = 0.66/2.75 2.6 = 18/6.9 70°

have been conducted to investigate the influence of geometri-

cal parameters on the mechanical performance of auxetic
structures. The geometrical parameters (such as rib length
and thickness) of splined re-entrant and stiffened re-entrant
honeycombs were experimentally and numerically found
[25] to have a significant effect on the mechanical properties.
Analytical and FE analysis confirmed that the modified unit
cell (by adding narrow ribs) of re-entrant honeycomb led to a
significant enhancement of Young’s modulus [36]. However,
Fig. 5 Experimental and FE simulated force–displacement curves of the
aluminium RCA structure loaded in both the X and Y directions [27]
it is time consuming and expensive to carry out a large number
of experiments to comprehensively investigate the effects of
geometrical parameters. Moreover, sometimes it is almost im-
possible to obtain essential information from experiment such
as stress contour of a structure. Therefore, numerical simula-
tion is an efficient method and has been widely employed to
investigate the effects of various geometrical parameters on
the mechanical performance of structures [37–42].
The effect of the geometrical parameters such as rib length
and rib thickness of the unit cell of the new designs on the in-
plane properties was investigated. Finite element results
showed that the in-plane stiffness of the new designs was
improved significantly compared to the basic re-entrant hon-
eycomb. In this paper, finite element (FE) simulation of the
RCA structure is conducted. Based on the manufactured RCA
samples (aluminium alloy 6061), full-scale FE models using
ABAQUS 6.11–2 are developed and verified using previous
experimental results [27]. Subsequently, a parametric study is
performed to investigate the effects of geometrical parameters
on the mechanical properties and auxetic behaviour of the
RCA structure. Three dimensionless groups of geometrical

Fig. 4 Sketches of the simulated unit cells of the RCA structure with
various values of a α (β = 0.16, λ = 2, θ0 = 30°); b β (α = 3.27, λ = 2, Fig. 6 Comparison between a experimental and b FE simulated
θ0 = 30°); c λ (α = 3.27, β = 0.16, θ0 = 30°); d inclination angle θ0 (α = deformation patterns at 116 mm axial displacement when a RCA
3.27, β = 0.16, λ = 2) sample is loaded in the Y direction
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 99:2425–2440
Fig. 7 FE simulated deformation
of the walls and cylinders of a
RCA structure when it is loaded
in the Y direction: a trichiral
topology; b anti-trichiral
topology; c manufacturing defects
(un-machined material) from the
waterjet cutting process
parameters (α = L1/r ratio, β = t/r ratio and λ = H/L1 ratio) and
one parameter (inclination angle, θ0) are examined.
2 Experiments
2.1 The geometrical parameters of a RCA structure
A unit cell of a RCA structure is shown in Fig. 1f. In this unit
cell, L1, L2 and H are the original lengths of the walls.
Inclination angle (θ0) is the original angle between the vertical
wall (H) and the inclined wall (L1). t1 is the in-plane thickness
of walls and hollow cylinders. t2 (not shown) is the out-of-
plane thickness of the structure. Each cylinder has an outer
radius of (r) and it is tangentially attached by three walls. Two
adjacent cylinders attach to the connecting red walls shown in
Fig. 1f on the same side (anti-trichiral topology) while the two
2429
adjacent cylinders attach to the connecting green wall shown
in Fig. 1f on the opposite sides (trichiral topology).
2.2 Materials and experimental tests
Two aluminium RCA samples were fabricated from widely
used aluminium alloy (6061) plate by an abrasive waterjet
machine WJM (MAXIEM 1515) and shown in Fig. 2a, b.
The stress–strain curves of aluminium alloy (6061) (parent
material of RCA samples) were measured in reference [27].
Figure 2c shows the corresponding true stress–strain curves of
four repeated tests according to the ASTM standards E8/E8M
−15a. Both RCA samples had the same unit cell geometrical
parameters: r = 2.75 mm, H = 18 mm, L1 = 9 mm, L2 = 9 mm,
θ0 = 30°, t1 = 0.45 mm, t2 = 5 mm. Previous studies [27,
43–47] manifested that bulk properties could be achieved
when a structure had a minimum of five unit cells in each
2430
Fig. 8 FE simulated deformation history of RCA structure under uniaxial tensile loading in the Y direction: a RCA sample; b unit cell at the centre of the
sample
direction. Therefore, the RCA samples were designed to have
5 × 5 unit cells and their overall in-plane dimensions were
190 mm × 124 mm. Uniaxial tensile tests were conducted
[27] using Zwick Roell machine (Zwick/Z010) equipped with
a load cell of 10 kN. The bottom side of each sample was fixed
(i.e., could not move along the loading direction) while the top
side moved at a constant speed of 0.05 mm/s with the machine
crosshead. A lubricant was used to reduce the friction between
contacted surfaces. The fracture occurred at axial displace-
ment of 60 and 116 mm, respectively, when RCA samples
were loaded in the X and Y directions.
3 Finite element model for uniaxial tensile
loading
3.1 FE models
Finite element (FE) models were developed using ABAQUS/
IMPLICIT software (Version 6.11–2). The elastic-plastic ma-
terial model was employed and material properties used in
FEA are listed in Table 2. A typical true stress–strain curve
(Test 1) shown in Fig. 2c was input into the FE model as the
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 99:2425–2440
material properties for aluminium. Walls and cylinders of the
RCA structures were simulated by standard shell element
(S4R) with four nodes. The element size, 0.45 mm, was de-
termined from a mesh convergence analysis. Twelve points
(marked in blue in Fig. 3a) were selected in the middle area
and traced to calculate the axial and lateral displacements.
When a RCA sample was simulated to be loaded in the X
and Y directions as shown in Fig. 3b, c, a uniform displace-
ment was assigned to the nodes on the top edge of the models.
Whilst nodes on the bottom edge of the models could move
freely along the lateral direction, their other translational and
rotational degrees of freedom were constrained.
The unit cell of the RCA structure has six in-plane geomet-
rical parameters (H, L1, L2, r, t1 and θ0) as shown in Fig. 1f. It
has been found that mechanical properties of the RCA struc-
ture are not sensitive to the horizontal walls (L2), and there-
fore, L2 remains constant. In order to reduce the variables
studied, dimensionless parameters are proposed. According
to reference [48], dimensionless groups must be independent.
Therefore, four geometrical parameters (H, L1, r and t1) can be
represented by three dimensionless groups (α = L1/r, β = t1/r
and λ = H/ L1). For each loading direction, five values of α, β,
λ and inclination angle (θ0) are selected to be studied as shown
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 99:2425–2440
Fig. 9 FE simulated deformation history of RCA structure under uniaxial tensile loading in the X direction a RCA sample; b unit cell at the centre of the
sample
in Table 3. When the effect of any parameter is examined, the
other parameters are fixed as those of the samples in
experiments (i.e. α = L1/r = 9/2.75 = 3.27, β = t1/r = 0.45/
2.75 = 0.16, λ = H/L1 = 18/9 = 2, θ0 = 30°). For clarification,
Fig. 4 shows the sketches of simulated unit cells of
the RCA structure.
3.2 Validation of the FE models
In order to validate the FE models, an FE model was setup
which had the same dimensions of the manufactured sample
mentioned in Sect. 2.2. The simulated force–displacement
curves are compared with the experimental results and shown
in Fig. 5. The FE and experimental curves match very well
when the RCA is loaded in the Y direction. Moreover, when
the RCA is loaded in the X direction, FE and experimental
curves are similar for small displacement (e.g. from 0 to
43 mm). Experimentally measured force fluctuates at 43, 48
and 52 mm, respectively. This was due to the unexpected
movement of fixtures employed to hold physical samples,
which was evidenced by videos taken in the experimental
tests. Moreover, typical experimental and FE simulated defor-
mations of a RCA sample when it is loaded in the Y direction
are shown in Fig. 6. Very similar deformation patterns are
observed. Such comparisons manifest that the FE models are
valid. Further parametric study can be conducted using the
2431
validated FE models to investigate the effects of loading di-
rections and geometrical parameters on the mechanical perfor-
mance of the RCA structure.
4 Results
4.1 Deformation patterns
Typical cylinders and walls of the RCA structure at 150 mm
axial displacement when it is loaded in the Y direction are
shown in Fig. 7. It can be seen that cylinders having trichiral
topology (two adjacent cylinders connecting to a wall on the
opposite sides) rotate in the same direction leading to a full-
wave shape deformation of the inclined walls (L1) as shown in
Fig. 7a. In contrast, cylinders having anti-trichiral topology
(two adjacent cylinders connecting to a wall on the same
sides) rotate in the opposite directions leading to a half-wave
shape deformation of the vertical (H) and horizontal (L2) walls
as shown in Fig. 7b.
It is worth noting that in the current study, the FE models
for RCA were established with the perfect geometrical param-
eters as designed. However, for the manufactured samples, the
geometrical parameters were slightly different from the de-
signed ones because of the imperfect manufacturing process.
Moreover, there was un-machined material left at the
2432 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 99:2425–2440
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 99:2425–2440
ƒFig. 10 FE simulated stress–strain curves of the RCA structure loaded in
the X (right figures) and Y (left figures) directions with various values of: a,
b α (L/r); c, d β (t/r); e, f λ (H/L1); g, h initial inclination angle (θ0)
connections of cylinders-walls (indicated by the yellow
dashed lines in Fig. 7c) due to limitation of the waterjet cutting
process. Manufacturing defects might affect the deformation
of the manufactured samples.
Figure 8a shows the simulated deformation history of the
RCA sample when it is loaded in the Y direction. Figure 8b
displays corresponding the axial and lateral dimensions of the
original and deformed unit cell that is allocated in the middle
area of the RCA sample. In general, the RCA sample expands
uniformly in both the axial and lateral directions under uniax-
ial tensile loading. When the RCA sample is loaded, the ten-
sile force causes stretching and bending of the vertical walls
(H) and the inclined walls (L1) simultaneously. Moreover, the
tensile force generates torques on the cylinders leading to their
in-plane rotation. This rotation introduces additional bending
to the walls. As the tension progresses, when the axial dis-
placement is approximately 125 mm, the inclined walls (L1)
become horizontal (shown in Fig. 8a) indicating the maximum
lateral displacement. With further tension, the structure ex-
pands axially and shrink laterally, similar to a conventional
hexagonal honeycomb. Comparing with honeycombs, RCA
can experience much larger axial deformation. For example, at
180 mm axial displacement, the axial displacement of a unit
cell is 2.4 times of its original dimension.
On the other hand, when the RCA sample is loaded in the X
direction, similar deformation pattern is observed, except no
stretching of the “H” walls but stretching of the “L2” walls.
The RCA sample expands in both directions due to the rota-
tion of cylinders and the deflection of the inclined walls (L1).
When the original inclined walls (L1) become vertical (shown
in Fig. 9), they experience stretching without bending, similar
to the “L2” walls, and the lateral displacement reaches the
maximum. Moreover, the RCA sample loaded in the X direc-
tion undergoes smaller axial but larger lateral displacements
compared with that RCA sample loaded in the Y direction.
4.2 Stress–strain curves
Nominal stress (σ) is calculated by dividing the total nodal
reaction forces at the bottom of the FE models by the cross-
sectional areas. While engineering strain (ɛ) is the ratio of the
instantaneous change in displacement to the original length in
the axial direction. Figure 10 presents the effects of the exam-
ined parameters on the engineering stress–strain curves.
Generally, the RCA structure shows smooth stress–strain
curves without any fluctuation during the tensile testing.
Geometrical parameters affect the stress–strain curves signif-
icantly. Details will be discussed in Sect. 5.1. Moreover, stress
is higher and strain is smaller when a RCA sample is loaded in
2433
the X direction than that in the Y direction. When a RCA
sample is loaded in the Y direction, the stress–strain curves
broadly have three stages: the elastic stage, plateau stage and
densification stage. The third (i.e. densification) stage when
the stress increases sharply is more evident at larger values of
α and θ0, which is similar to conventional cellular materials
under compression [49]. However, when a RCA sample is
loaded in the X direction, the stress increases monolithically
with strain with no evident plateau region.
4.3 Poisson’s ratios
In order to investigate the auxetic behaviour of the RCA struc-
ture, the instantaneous displacements in both directions are
calculated based on the displacements of the 12 points men-
tioned in Sect. 3.1 and shown in Fig. 3. The average displace-
ment between the points in the top and bottom rows (1 and 9;
2 and 10; 3 and 11; 4 and 12) is taken as the axial displace-
ment, while the average displacement between those in the left
and right rows (1 and 4; 5 and 6; 7 and 8; 9 and 12) is
taken as the lateral displacement. True strains and Poisson’s
ratio are then calculated accordingly by the equations given in
reference [27].
The effects of the examined parameters on the Poisson’s
ratio of the RCA structure are shown in Fig. 11. In general,
Poisson’s ratio of the RCA structure changes from negative to
positive when a RCA sample is tensioned in the Y direction as
shown in Fig. 11a, c, e, g. This indicates the expansion and
then the shrinkage in the lateral direction, which echoes the
previous observation in Sect. 4.1. In the case of loading in the
X direction, the auxetic feature is present during the entire
tension process. Poisson’s ratio first decreases gradually then
increases sharply with the axial strain as shown in Fig. 11b, d,
f, h. The minimum value (i.e. the maximum absolute value) of
Poisson’s ratio is corresponding to the moment when the in-
clined walls (L1) become vertical as shown in Fig. 9.
When a RCA sample is loaded in the Y direction, the effect
of α is shown in Fig. 11a. The slope of Poisson’s ratio vs. axial
strain curves increases with α. Larger values of α (i.e. longer
L1 or smaller r) result in greater slope of Poisson’s ratio.
Figure 11a shows that the RCA displays auxetic behaviour
up to approximately 0.45 axial strain and Poisson’s ratio
changes from − 1.4 to 3.5 when α = 9 (the largest value of α
studied). The RCA also demonstrates auxetic behaviour up to
approximately 0.8 axial strain and Poisson’s ratio changes
from − 0.75 to 0.4 when α = 2.3 (the smallest value of α
studied). On the other hand, when the RCA is loaded in the
X direction as shown in Fig. 11b, a similar influence of α is
firstly observed (i.e. the larger the α, the larger the slope of
Poisson’s ratio) until the intersection point of Poisson’s ratio
curves at approximately 0.27 axial strain. However, the
Poisson’s ratio decreases to the minimum (in the range from
− 3.25 to − 3.5) at approximately 0.34 axial strain. Beyond
2434 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 99:2425–2440
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 99:2425–2440
ƒFig. 11 FE simulated Poisson’s ratio curves of the RCA structure loaded in
the X (right figures) and Y (left figures) directions with various values of: a,
b α (L/r); c, d β (t/r); e, f λ (H/L1); g, h initial inclination angle (θ0)
this point, Poisson’s ratio increases dramatically with axial
strain.
The effect of β on the Poisson’s ratio is shown in Fig. 11c,
d. It can be seen that Poisson’s ratio is insensitive to β (in the
range studied) when RCA samples are loaded in both the X
and Y directions.
The effect of λ on the Poisson’s ratio is shown in the
Fig. 11e, f. When RCA samples are loaded in the Y direction,
the various values of λ do not affect the Poison’s ratio up to
0.25 axial strain as shown in Fig. 11e. Beyond this axial strain,
with the increase of λ, the slope of the Poisson’s ratio vs. axial
strain curve increases. The largest value of λ (λ = 2.6) results
in the largest slope, and the Poison’s ratio increases from − 0.9
to 2.25, while the smallest value of λ (λ = 1.8) results in the
smallest slope, and the Poison’s ratio increases from − 0.9 to
0.6. When RCA samples are loaded in the X direction, the
effect of λ is shown in Fig. 11f. The Poisson’s ratio remains
negative. When λ is the smallest, λ = 1.8, the minimum
Poison’s ratio of the RCA structure is − 4, whose absolute
value is the largest. When λ is the largest, λ = 2.6, the mini-
mum Poison’s ratio is approximately − 2, whose absolute val-
ue is the smallest.
The effect of initial inclination angle (θ0) is shown in
Fig. 11g, h, indicating that θ0 has a dominant effect on the
auxetic behaviour of the RCA structure. When the RCA sam-
ple is loaded in the Y direction, the maximum axial strain at
which the auxetic feature is present, increases with the de-
crease of θ0. At a small value of θ0 (θ0 = 30°), the auxetic
feature remains up to 0.75 axial strain, and Poisson’s ratio
increases monolithically from − 0.9 to 0.6, while at a large
value of θ0 (θ0 = 70°), the auxetic feature remains only up to
0.2 axial strain, and Poisson’s ratios increase from − 0.3 to 5.
When the RCA sample is loaded in the X direction, similar
influence of θ0 is observed.
5 Discussions
5.1 Stress–strain curves
5.1.1 Effect of loading direction
In the case of loading in the Y direction, the unit cells initially
deform elastically via bending of the inclined walls (L1) and
stretching of the vertical walls (H). The accompanying change
in the inclination angle is expected when the inclined walls
(L1) are deflected. Therefore, a new inclination angles φ and
ψ are used instead of the original angle θ0 as shown in Fig. 12
2435
when the RCA structure is loaded in the X and Y, respectively.
Afterward, the inclined walls (L1) deform plastically when the
actual stress in walls is beyond the yield stress of the parent
material (aluminium alloy 6061). The inclined walls deform
easily due to relatively long arm of plastic bending moment
(APBM) when φ and ψ are larger than 45° as shown in
Fig. 12a. The APBM continues to increase to its maximum
value when the inclined walls (L1) become horizontal.
Subsequently, the APBM decreases, and a larger tensile force
is required, resulting in a steep rising of stress (in some cases
sharp increases).
Conversely, when the RCA structure is loaded in the X
direction, the relatively short APBM when φ is larger than
45° as shown in Fig. 12b requires larger tensile force for the
plastic deformation of the inclined walls (L1). With the prog-
ress of loading, the APBM continues to decrease (i.e. larger
force is required) until it becomes zero when the inclined walls
(L1) become vertical (as shown in Fig. 12b). Eventually, the
remarkable increases of the stress as shown on right side of
Fig. 10b, d, f, h is an evidence of the stretching of the inclined
walls (L1) simultaneously with the (L2) walls.
The FE models enable the observation of the local stress
concentration in unit cells as well. From Fig. 12, it can be seen
that the maximum local stress occurs in the interconnecting
areas where the inclined (L1), horizontal (L2) and vertical (H)
walls join cylinders.
5.1.2 Effects of parameters (α, β, λ and θ0)
Figure 10a, b shows that stress level increases when α in-
creases. In our previous experimental work [27], it has been
stated that the inclined walls (L1) are subjected to two opposite
pairs of bending moments. The first pair results from the ten-
sile force applied, while the second pair results from the in-
plane rotation of cylinders. Therefore, as the sum of the two
pairs of the bending moments, the inclined walls deform sym-
metrically in full-wave shape as shown in Fig. 7. The smaller
the α (i.e. larger the cylinder’s radius), the larger the bending
moment resulting from the rotation, the smaller the net bend-
ing moment resulting from the sum of two pairs, and hence the
lower the force/stress. Additionally, Fig. 13 displays the de-
formation patterns of the inclined walls (L1) at 150 mm axial
displacement when the RCA structure are loaded in the Y
direction. It can be seen that at the largest value of α (α = 9),
the full-wave deformation is more evident, while it is not
apparent at the smallest value of α (α = 2.3). It is known that
a full-wave deformation is a higher energy dissipation mode
[49] than other deformation modes.
Figure 10c, d demonstrates that β has a significant effect on
the stress–strain curves. It is clear that the stresses in both
loading directions increase as β increases. At a larger values
of β (i.e. thicker walls and cylinders), the resistance to the
plastic collapse (plastic bending and stretching) increases.
2436
To clarify the effect of λ shown in Fig. 10e, f, the highest
and lowest values of λ are used as examples. Since the
cylinder’s radius is constant when λ is varied, the bend-
ing moment resulting from cylinder rotation is constant,
while the bending moment resulting from the tensile
force is different due to various lengths of APBM. For
the same applied force on the RCA structure that has
λ = 1.8, the resulting bending moment on the inclined
walls (L1) is much larger than that for λ = 2.6 due to a longer
APBM. Therefore, the longer the L1 (i.e. the lowest λ), the
easier the deformation.
Figure 14a shows the effect of θ0 on the deformation pat-
tern of the RCA structure when it is loaded in the Y direction
at 36 mm axial displacement. At a large value of θ0 (θ0 = 70°),
the inclined walls (L1) become horizontal at a small displace-
ment. Afterward, the unit cells become slender and deform in
a similar manner to a conventional honeycomb. In other
words, beyond the point when the inclined walls (L1)
become horizontal, a larger force is required for further
deformation. The sharp increase in stress observed in
Fig. 10g is attributed to the remarkable decrease of the
Fig. 12 Loading of the inclined walls (L1), deformation patterns and stress (GPa) concentration of walls at 50 and 100% axial strains when the RCA
structure is loaded in the a Y direction; b X direction
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 99:2425–2440
APBM. In the case of loading in the X direction, Fig. 10h
shows that θ0 has a significant influence on the stress–strain
curves and a similar effect on the axial strain to that observed
in the case of loading in the Y direction. Figure 14b shows the
effect of θ0 on the deformed RCA structure at 8 mm axial
displacement. When θ0 is larger, APBM is smaller and re-
quired force/stress is higher.
5.2 Poisson’s ratio
RCA structure combines trichiral, anti-trichiral and re-entrant
topologies. Therefore, its Poisson’s ratio is related to those
topologies.
The effect of α shown in Fig. 11a, b can be explained as
follows. When RCA is loaded in the Y direction, at large
values of α (long L1 or small r), the chiral effect is less sig-
nificant and the RCA behaves similar to a re-entrant honey-
comb. The Poisson’s ratio of RCA is similar to that of a re-
entrant honeycomb, which transits from negative to positive
[27, 31]. In contrast, at small values of α (short L1 or large r),
the chiral topology plays a dominant role, which results in
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 99:2425–2440 2437

Fig. 13 Deformation patterns and stress contours of the inclined walls (L1) at a α = 2.3; b α = 6

reducing the slope of Poisson’s ratio and hence extending the
period of auxetic feature of the tensioned RCA.
On the other hand, when the RCA structure is loaded in the
X direction, Poisson’s ratio remains negative in the entire ten-
sile process. It has been stated that the re-entrant honeycomb
has small negative Poisson’s ratio when it is loaded in the X
direction [31, 50]. In the case of RCA structure, the rotation of
the cylinders introduces additional auxetic effect to that com-
ing from the deflection of the inclined walls (L1). From
Fig. 11b, it can be seen that the smaller the α (i.e. the larger

Fig. 14 The deformation patterns of a RCA unit cell as a function of initial cell angle (θ0) when it is loaded in the a Y direction at 36 mm axial
displacement; b X direction at 8 mm axial displacement
2438
the r), the minimum the value (i.e. the maximum absolute
value) of Poisson’s ratio obtained.
The effect of λ observed in Fig. 11e, f can be attributed to
the ratio between the vertical (H) and the inclined (L1) walls,
while the chiral effect is similar for all values of λ. At small
values of λ (short H or long L1), the re-entrant effect is
more significant due to the relative long length of the
inclined walls (L1) compared with the vertical walls (H).
Therefore, the period of the auxetic effect (i.e. up to the
point when inclined walls (L 1) become horizontal or
vertical) extends. For example, when λ = 1.8 and 2.6, the axial
strains are 0.78 and 0.53, respectively, as shown in Fig. 11e
when the inclined walls become horizontal (i.e. RCA with
negative Poisson’s ratio).
The effect of the inclination angle (θ0) on Poisson’s ratio is
shown in Fig. 11g, h. The increase of the inclination angle
leads to a decrease in the axial strain and an increase in
Poisson’s ratio. The position of the deflected inclined walls
(L1) corresponding to the axial strain as shown in Fig. 14 is the
main reason for this influence. In the case of loading in
the Y direction, the larger the initial angle, the sooner
the inclined walls change to horizontal (i.e. ψ = 90°)
after a small axial strain as shown in Fig. 14a (i.e.
Poisson’s ratio transits from negative to positive at a
small axial strain). Then, the unit cells turn into con-
ventional hexagonal cells earlier as compared with other
initial angles. On the other hand, in the case of loading in the X
direction, the larger the initial angle, the sooner the inclined
walls change to vertical (i.e. φ = 90°) after small axial strain as
shown in Fig. 14b.
6 Conclusions
This paper numerically investigates the effects of loading di-
rection and geometrical parameters of the re-entrant chiral
auxetic (RCA) structure on its tensile properties, i.e. stress-
strain curves and Poisson’s ratio. The parameters studied are
α = L1/r, λ = H/L1, β = t/r and initial inclination angle θ0.
Results showed that the RCA structure predominantly de-
formed by bending and stretching of walls as well as rotation
of cylinders. The inclined walls (L1) deformed into a full-
wave shape, while the vertical (H) and horizontal (L2) walls
deformed into a half-wave shape. It was also found that the
load direction had a significant effect on the tensile properties.
High stress level, low strain and relatively large negative
Poisson’s ratio were observed when the RCA structure was
loaded in the X direction. While low stress, high strain and
transition of Poisson’s ratio from negative to positive were
observed when the RCA structure was loaded in the Y direc-
tion. The effects of α, β, λ and θ0 on the stress–strain curves
were found to be similar—the larger the parameter, the greater
the stress and the slope of stress. The effects of α, λ and θ0 on
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 99:2425–2440
the Poisson’s ration were also similar for the RCA structure
loaded in the Y direction, i.e. Poisson’s ratio increased mono-
tonically with axial strain and its slope increased with α, λ and
θ0. On the other hand, when the RCA structure was loaded in
the X direction, Poisson’s ratio first decreased and then in-
creased. The inflexion point was independent of α, in-
creased with λ and decreased with θ0. Poisson’s ratio
was independent of β irrespecitve of whether the RCA
structure was loaded in either the X or Y direction. This
study provided useful information for the optimal design
of unit cell of RCA structure. Further analytical models
are expected to be developed to theoretically interpret the
influence of geometrical parameters on the mechanical perfor-
mance of the RCA structure.
Acknowledgments The first author would like to thank the Republic of
Iraq, Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, and the
Higher Committee of Education Development in Iraq (HCED) for the
financial support of a postgraduate research award.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
1. Greaves G, Greer A, Lakes R, Rouxel T (2011) Poisson’s ratio and
modern materials. Nat Mater 10(11):823–837. https://doi.org/10.
1038/nmat3134
2. Bezazi A, Scarpa F (2009) Tensile fatigue of conventional and
negative Poisson’s ratio open cell PU foams. Int J Fract 31(3):
488–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2008.05.005
3. Li D, Dong L, Lakes R (2013) The properties of copper foams with
negative Poisson's ratio via resonant ultrasound spectroscopy. Phys
Status Solidi B 250(10):1983–1987. https://doi.org/10.1002/pssb.
201384229
4. Almgren RF (1985) An isotropic three-dimensional structure with
Poisson’s ratio =−1. J Elast 15(4):427–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF00042531
5. Lakes R (1987) Foam structures with a negative Poisson’s ratio. Sci
235(4792):1038–1040. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.235.4792.
1038
6. Evans K (1991) Auxetic polymers: a new range of materials.
Endeavour 15(4):170–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-9327(91)
90123-S
7. Choi J, Lakes R (1996) Fracture toughness of re-entrant foam ma-
terials with a negative Poisson’s ratio: experiment and analysis. Int J
Fract 80(1):73–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00036481
8. Spadoni A, Ruzzene M, Scarpa F (2005) Global and local linear
buckling behavior of a chiral cellular structure. Phys Status Solidi B
242(3):695–709. https://doi.org/10.1002/pssb.200460387
9. Javadi A, Faramarzi A, Farmani R (2012) Design and optimization
of microstructure of auxetic materials. Eng Comput 29(3):260–276.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02644401211212398
10. Photiou D, Sarris E, Constantinides G (2016) On the conical inden-
tation response of elastic auxetic materials: effects of Poisson's ra-
tio, contact friction and cone angle. Int J Solids Struct 81:33–42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.10.020
11. Rossiter J, Takashima K, Scarpa F, Walters P, Mukai T (2014)
Shape memory polymer hexachiral auxetic structures with tunable
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 99:2425–2440
stiffness. Smart Mater Struct 23(4):45007. https://doi.org/10.1088/
0964-1726/23/4/045007
12. Evans K, Alderson A, Christian F (1995) Auxetic two-dimensional
polymer networks: an example of tailoring geometry for specific
mechanical properties. J Chem Soc Faraday Trans 91:2671–2680.
https://doi.org/10.1039/ft9959102671
13. Wan H, Ohtaki H, Kotosaka S, Hu G (2004) A study of negative
Poisson’s ratios in auxetic honeycombs based on a large deflection
model. Eur J Mech A Solids 23(1):95–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.euromechsol.2003.10.006
14. Alderson A, Alderson K, Attard D, Evans K, Gatt R, Grima J,
Miller W, Ravirala N, Smith C, Zied K (2010) Elastic constants
of 3-, 4- and 6-connected chiral and anti-chiral honeycombs subject
to uniaxial in-plane loading. Compos Sci Technol 70(7):1042–
1048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2009.07.009
15. Spadoni A, Ruzzene M (2012) Elasto-static micropolar behavior of
a chiral auxetic lattice. J Mech Phys Solids 60(1):156–171. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2011.09.012
16. Prall D, Lakes R (1997) Properties of a chiral honeycomb with a
poisson’s ratio of −1. (longer version). Int J Mech Sci 39(3):305–
314. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7403(96)00025-2
17. Álvarez Elipe JC, Díaz Lantada A (2012) Comparative study of
auxetic geometries by means of computer-aided design and engi-
neering. Smart Mater Struct 21:105004. https://doi.org/10.1088/
0964-1726/21/10/105004
18. Hou Y, Neville R, Scarpa F, Remillat C, Gu B, Ruzzene M (2014)
Graded conventional-auxetic Kirigami sandwich structures: flat-
wise compression and edgewise loading. Compos Part B 59:33–
42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.10.084
19. Levy O, Krylov S, Goldfarb I (2006) Design considerations for
negative Poisson ratio structures under large deflection for MEMS
applications. Smart Mater Struct 15(5):1459–1466. https://doi.org/
10.1088/0964-1726/15/5/035
20. Alderson A, Rasburn J, Ameer-Beg S, Mullarkey P, Perrie W,
Evans K (2000) An Auxetic filter: a Tuneable filter displaying
enhanced size selectivity or Defouling properties. Ind Eng Chem
Res 39:654–665. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie990572w
21. Li S, Hassanin H, Attallah M, Adkins N, Essa K (2016) The devel-
opment of TiNi-based negative Poisson’s ratio structure using se-
lective laser melting. Acta Mater 105:75–83. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.actamat.2015.12.017
22. Grima J, Attard D, Ellul B, Gatt R (2011) An improved analytical
model for the elastic constants of auxetic and conventional hexag-
onal honeycombs. Cell Polym 30(6):287–310
23. Scarpa F, Panayiotou P, Tomlinson G (2000) Numerical and exper-
imental uniaxial loading on in-plane auxetic honeycombs. J Strain
Anal Eng Des 35(5):383–388. https://doi.org/10.1243/
0309324001514152
24. Alderson A, Alderson K, Chirima G, Ravirala N, Zied K (2010)
The in-plane linear elastic constants and out-of-plane bending of 3-
coordinated ligament and cylinder-ligament honeycombs. Compos
Sci Technol 70(7):1034–1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compscitech.2009.07.010
25. Zied K, Osman M, Elmahdy T (2015) Enhancement of the in-plane
stiffness of the hexagonal re-entrant auxetic honeycomb cores. Phys
Status Solidi B 252(12):2685–2692. https://doi.org/10.1002/pssb.
201552164
26. Fu M, Chen Y, Hu L (2017) A novel auxetic honeycomb with
enhanced in-plane stiffness and buckling strength. Compos Struct
160:574–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.10.090
27. Alomarah A, Ruan D, Masood S, Sbarski I, Faisal B (2018) An
investigation of in-plane plastic properties of re-entrant chiral
auxetic structure. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 96:2013–2029. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-1605-x
28. Pozniak A, Wojciechowski K (2014) Poisson’s ratio of rectangular
anti-chiral structures with size dispersion of circular nodes. Phys
2439
Status Solidi B Res 251(2):367–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/pssb.
201384256
29. Yang L, Harrysson O, Cormier D, West H, Gong H, Stucker B
(2015) Additive manufacturing of metal cellular structures: design
and fabrication. JOM 67(3):608–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11837-015-1322-y
30. Yang L, Harrysson O, West H, Cormier D (2015) Shear properties
of the re-entrant auxetic structure made via electron beam melting.
Solid Free Fabr Symp 1394–409
31. Zhang J, Lu G, Wang Z, Ruan D, Alomarah A, Durandet Y (2017)
Large deformation of an auxetic structure in tension: experiments
and finite element analysis. Compos Struct 184:92–101. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.09.076
32. Subramani P, Rana S, Ghiassi B, Fangueiro R, Oliveira D,
Lourenco P, Xavier J (2016) Development and characterization of
novel auxetic structures based on re-entrant hexagon design pro-
duced from braided composites. Compos Part B 93:132–142.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.02.058
33. Attard D, Manicaro E, Gatt R, Grima J (2009) On the properties of
auxetic rotating stretching squares. Phys Phys Status Solidi B
246(9):2045–2054. https://doi.org/10.1002/pssb.200982035
34. Grima J, Farrugia P, Gatt R, Attard D (2008) On the auxetic prop-
erties of rotating rhombi and parallelograms: a preliminary investi-
gation. Phys Status Solidi B Basic Res 245(3):521–529. https://doi.
org/10.1002/pssb.200777705
35. Slann A, White W, Scarpa F, Boba K, Farrow I (2015) Cellular
plates with auxetic rectangular perforations. Phys Status Solidi B
252(7):1533–1539. https://doi.org/10.1002/pssb.201451740
36. Lu Z, Li X, Yang Z, Xie F (2016) Novel structure with negative
Poisson’s ratio and enhanced Young’s modulus. Compos Struct
138:243–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.11.036
37. Besant T, Davies G, Hitchings D (2001) Finite element modelling
of low velocity impact of composite sandwich panels. Compos A
Appl Sci Manuf 32(9):1189–1196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-
835X(01)00084-7
38. Hou X, Deng Z, Zhang K (2016) Dynamic crushing strength anal-
ysis of Auxetic honeycombs. Acta Mech Solida Sin 29(5):490–501.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0894-9166(16)30267-1
39. Alkhader M, Vural M (2008) Mechanical response of cellular
solids: role of cellular topology and microstructural irregularity.
Int J Eng Sci 46(10):1035–1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijengsci.2008.03.012
40. Deqiang S, Weihong Z, Yanbin W (2010) Mean out-of-plane dy-
namic plateau stresses of hexagonal honeycomb cores under impact
loadings. Compos Struct 92(11):2609–2621. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.compstruct.2010.03.016
41. Asprone D, Auricchio F, Menna C, Morganti S, Prota A, Reali A
(2013) Statistical finite element analysis of the buckling behavior of
honeycomb structures. Compos Struct 105:240–255. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.05.014
42. Xu S, Ruan D, Beynon J (2014) Finite element analysis of the
dynamic behavior of aluminum honeycombs. Int J Comput
Methods 11:1344001. https://doi.org/10.1142/
S0219876213440015
43. Onck P, Andrews E, Gibson L (2001) Size effects in ductile cellular
solids. Part I: modeling. Int J Mech Sci 43(3):681–699. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0020-7403(00)00042-4
44. Andrews E, Gioux G, Onck P, Gibson L (2001) Size effects in
ductile cellular solids. Part II: experimental results. Int J Mech Sci
43(3):701–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7403(00)00043-6
45. Dai G, Zhang W (2008) Size effects of basic cell in static analysis of
sandwich beams. Int J Solids Struct 45(9):2512–2533. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2007.12.007
46. Yang L, Harrysson O, West H, Cormier D (2015)
Mechanical properties of 3D re-entrant honeycomb auxetic
2440
structures realized via additive manufacturing. Int J Solids Struct
69–70:475–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.05.005
47. Cai K, Luo J, Ling Y, Wan J, Qin Q (2016) Effects of size and
surface on the auxetic behaviour of monolayer graphene kirigami.
Sci Rep 6:35157. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep35157
48. Lu G, Yu TX (2003) Energy Absorption of Structures and
Materials. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, UK.
https://doi.org/10.1533/9781855738584.backmatter
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 99:2425–2440
49. Gibson LJ, Ashby MF (1997) Cellular solids: structure and proper-
ties, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.
org/10.1017/CBO9781139878326
50. Alomarah A, Zhang J, Ruan D, Masood S, Lu G (2017)
Mechanical properties of the 2D re-entrant honeycomb made
via direct metal printing. IOP Conference Series: IOP Conf
Ser Mater Sci Eng 229(1):012038. https://doi.org/10.1088/
1757-899X/229/1/012038