materials

Article
Mechanical Properties of Auxetic Cellular Material
Consisting of Re-Entrant Hexagonal Honeycombs
Xiangwen Zhang and Deqing Yang *
State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Collaborative Innovation Center for Advanced Ship and Deep-Sea
Exploration, School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai 200240, China; zxwsjtu@gmail.com
* Correspondence: yangdq@sjtu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-130-0218-0110

Academic Editor: Martin O. Steinhauser

Received: 8 September 2016; Accepted: 2 November 2016; Published: 7 November 2016

Abstract: A preliminary study of the mechanical properties of auxetic cellular material consisting
of re-entrant hexagonal honeycombs is presented. For different scales of the honeycombs, the finite
element method (FEM) and experimental models are used to perform a parametric analysis on the
effects of the Poissons ratio (cell angle) and the relative density (cell thickness) of honeycombs
on bearing capacity and dynamic performance of the auxetic material. The analysis demonstrates
that the ultimate bearing capacity of the presented auxetic cellular material is scale-independent
when the Poissons ratio and the relative density are kept constant. The relationship between the
geometric parameters and vibration level difference of the honeycombs is also revealed, which can be
divided into two converse parts around the Poissons ratio v = 1.5. When v is smaller than 1.5,
increasing the cell thickness leads to an increase in the vibration level difference of the honeycombs.
Moreover, the dynamic performance of thin-walled honeycombs is greatly influenced by the scale of
the honeycombs, especially for the ones with small Poissons ratio. These conclusions are verified by
a frequency response test and a good agreement between the numerical results and experimental
data is achieved.

Keywords: auxetic cellular material; re-entrant honeycombs; Poissons ratio; relative density; scale;
bearing capacity; dynamic performance

1. Introduction
Poissons ratio is defined as the negative ratio between the longitudinal expansion and the lateral
contraction of a material during loading [1]. Conventional materials present a positive Poissons ratio
and their cross-sections become larger under compression and smaller under tension. Nonetheless, the
classical theory of elasticity does not preclude the existence of materials with negative Poissons ratio,
also known as auxetic after a 1991 study when Evans et al. re-elaborated this theory [2]. Unlike
conventional materials/structures, auxetic ones present the very unusual property of becoming wider
when stretched and narrower when squashed [3].
Auxetic materials constitute a new class of materials that not only can be found in nature, i.e.,
cubic elemental metals [4], but can also be fabricated, including honeycombs [5], polymeric and
metallic foams [6], and microporous polymers [7]. These materials demonstrate unique and enhanced
mechanical properties compared with their conventional counterparts [8,9]. For example, it has been
shown experimentally that the indentation resistance of auxetic materials has been enhanced up to
four times when compared with their conventional equivalent [10]. Other enhanced properties are
mechanical hardness, toughness, and stiffness [11]. In terms of the dynamic performance, auxetic
materials also show an overall superiority regarding damping and acoustic properties compared to the
conventional materials [12,13]. It has been found that auxetic honeycomb structures not only show an

Materials 2016, 9, 900; doi:10.3390/ma9110900 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2016, 9, 900 2 of 13

improvement of transmission loss factors but also show an isotropic acoustic signature at lower modes
and also have isotropic mechanical properties [14,15]. Owing to their lower price, easy availability,
and desirable mechanical properties, auxetic materials find a broad range of applications in many
industrial sectors, especially in automotive, aerospace, and marine industries [16,17]. More and more
auxetic materials and structures with different microstructures are used to replace the conventional
counterparts and have achieved satisfactory results [18]. For example, in the aeronautic industry, the
replacement of foam cores in sandwich structures with auxetic foams results in a significant decrease
in the level of noise that reaches the inside of the cabin, since the acoustic absorption properties of
auxetics have been shown to be superior to those of conventional materials [19].
It has also been found that almost all of the auxetic materials are designed based on the simple
mechanism that the global stiffening effects of them are determined by the unit cell [20,21]. Over the
years, several different units that can achieve auxetic behavior have been proposed, such as re-entrant
hexagonal honeycombs [22,23], rotating rectangles and triangles [24,25], as well as arrow-head and
star-shaped configurations [26,27]. Among them, re-entrant cellular material is one of the most classical
auxetic materials and has been extensively studied [28,29], since the presence of their auxetic behavior
is a scale-independent property; that is, the deformation mechanism of re-entrant cellular materials
can operate at any scale ranging from the nano-level to the macro-scale [30].
This paper is designed to further study the mechanical properties of auxetic cellular materials
made of the foldable (the aspect ratio of honeycombs is 2), equal-height, re-entrant hexagonal
honeycombs. By changing the geometric parameters of the re-entrant honeycombs, these auxetic
cellular materials will take on a tunable negative Poissons ratio. This study focuses on the effect of
the geometric parameters of the honeycombs, such as cell angle, thickness, and scale, on the bearing
capacity and vibration reduction performance of the materials. The finite element method (FEM) was
used as the modeling technique to obtain the static characteristics of the honeycombs and the results
of the Poissons ratio for the honeycombs have been verified by analytical expressions. Numerical
analysis and experimental verifications for the dynamic characteristics of the honeycombs were also
carried out, which turned out to be in good agreement with each other.

2. Effects of Parameters on Bearing Capacity of the Auxetic Cellular Material

2.1. Finite Element Model Description

Finite element models of the presented samples consisting of cellular materials in this paper,
as shown in Figure 1, are constructed using MSC/Patran software. The samples are made of steel
faceplates and steel honeycombs with cell angles within the range 45 < < 0 . The geometric
parameters of the honeycombs satisfy the relationship of Equation (1). For the foldable (the aspect
ratio h/l of honeycombs is 2), equal-height, re-entrant hexagonal honeycombs, when the cell height
2lcos is kept constant, the vertical length h and the inclined length l vary with the change of the
cell angle (refer to Figure 2). The faceplate was formed in the shape of a rectangle with the length
a = 100 mm, the width b = 20 mm, and the thickness t = 50 mm. The loads were applied along
the z direction and the height of the sample was 100 mm. Both the faceplates and the honeycombs
were simulated as standard Quad4 elements in the finite element models with an element size of
2 mm 2.5 mm. The material is isotropic and the properties of density, Youngs modulus, and
Poissons ratio are s = 7800 kg/m3 , Es = 200 GPa, and vs = 0.27, respectively. DOF1 (Degree Of
Freedom), DOF2, DOF4, DOF5, and DOF6 of the transverse symmetry plane of the sample, and DOF3,
DOF4, DOF5, DOF6 of the longitudinal symmetry plane of the sample, were constrained to simulate
free tension and compression. The apparent in-plane mechanical properties of the honeycombs, such
as Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio, are determined by the uniaxial loads.
Materials 2016, 9, 900 3 of 13
Materials 2016, 9, 900 3 of 13
Materials 2016, 9, 900 3 of 13

Figure 1. The FE model of the re-entrant hexagonal honeycomb, where the red parts are faceplates
Figure 1. The
The FE
FE model of
model of the
there-entrant
re-entranthexagonal
hexagonalhoneycomb,
honeycomb, where
where the red parts are faceplates
Figure
and the1. blue parts are honeycombs. a and b are the length andthe
theredwidth
parts are faceplates
of the and
faceplate,
and
the the
blue blue
parts parts
are are honeycombs.
honeycombs. a and b a
are and
the b are
length the
and length
the and
width of the
the width of
faceplate, the faceplate,
respectively.
respectively.
respectively.

Figure 2. Cell geometry and the coordinate system used for the re-entrant hexagonal honeycomb,
Figure 2.
Figure Cellgeometry
2. Cell geometryandandthe
thecoordinate
coordinatesystem
systemusedusedforforthe
there-entrant
re-entranthexagonal
hexagonalhoneycomb,
honeycomb,
where h is the vertical length of the cell member, l is the inclined length of the cell member, and is
h is the vertical length of the cell member, l
where h is the vertical length of the cell member, l is the inclined length of the cell member, and
where is the inclined length of the cell member, and is the
is
the cell
cellcell
angle.angle.
the angle.

h 2l
h (2l (1)
2l cos h = 2l
const (1)
2l cos 2lcos
const
= const
(1)

2.2. The Accuracy of Finite Element Models

2.2.
2.2.The
TheAccuracy
AccuracyofofFinite
FiniteElement
ElementModels
Models
Using the geometric configuration and coordinate system of Figure 2, we put forward the
Using
Using thethe geometric
geometric configuration
configuration and
and coordinate
coordinate system
system of Figure
Figure 2,2,honeycombs
we
we put
put forward the
hypothesis that flexing of the cell walls causes deformation of theofre-entrant forward
when the an
hypothesis
hypothesis that
that flexing
flexing ofofthethecell
cellwalls
walls causes
causes deformation
deformation of the
of re-entrant
the re-entrant honeycombs
honeycombs when whenan
external load is applied. Treating the cell walls as beams and using simple mechanics, the Poissons
external loadload
an external is applied.
isdensity Treating
applied. the cellcell walls asas beams and using simple mechanics, the thePoissons
ratio and relative ofTreating
the cellsthe walls
are derived, whichbeams canandbe using
expressedsimple
as mechanics,
follows [25]: Poissons
ratio and relative density of the cells
ratio and relative density of the cells are are derived, which can be expressed as follows [25]:
derived,cos which
2
can be expressed as follows [25]:
v21 11 cos 2 (2)
v21 2 ( h / l sin )sin 2 (2)
2 ( h 1/ l sin )sin cos
v21 = t / l( h=/ l(h/l2) + sin )sin (2)
t / l2( h / l 2) (3)
2 cos ( h / l sin ) (3)
ss 2 cos ( h / l sin )
According to Equations (2) and (3), as t/l ( h/l + 2 )
for foldable (h/l = 2), equal-height, re-entrant hexagonal
According to Equations (2) and (3), = for (3)
honeycombs, the Poissons ratio of the s asauxetic
2cosfoldable
(h/l +(h/l
cellular
=)2), equal-height, re-entrant hexagonal
sinmaterials changes with the cell angle.
honeycombs, the Poissons ratio of the auxetic cellular materials changes with the cell angle.
Similarly, relative
According density can
to Equations (2) be
andaltered
(3), as forby foldable
the cell (h/l thickness, inclined length,
= 2), equal-height, and cell
re-entrant angle.
hexagonal
Similarly, relative density can be altered by the cell thickness, inclined length, and cell angle.
Poissons
honeycombs, ratiotheofPoissons
the honeycombs
ratio of thewasauxetic
calculated cellular by materials
the abovechangesanalytical
with models.
the cellThe calculations
angle. Similarly,
Poissons ratio of the honeycombs was calculated by the above analytical models. The calculations
were based
relative on the
density canfollowing
be altered parameters:
by the cell E s 200 GPa
thickness, and vlength,
inclined s 0.27and cellcell
height
angle. 2 lcos 42 ratio
Poissons mm,
were based on the following parameters: Es 200 GPa and vs 0.27 ,, cell height 2 lcos 42 mm,
of the
cell honeycombs
thickness wasand
t = 1 mm, calculated
cell angleby the [above
45,0analytical
] . Table 1 models.
shows the The calculations
comparison of were based
Poissons on
ratio
cell
the thickness
following t parameters:
= 1 mm, and E cell=angle
200
GPa [
and 45 v,0 ]
= . Table
0.27, 1 shows
cell height the2lcos
comparison
= 42 of Poissons
mm, cell ratio
thickness
between the FE models ands analytical expressions s results. As can be seen from Table 1, a good
between
tagreement
= 1 mm, the
andFEcellmodels and [ , 0 ].expressions
analytical results. As can be seen from Table ratio1, a good
between the analytical expressions and thethe
angle 45 Table 1 shows comparison
finite element of Poissons
models for the between
re-entrant
agreement
the FE modelsbetweenand the analytical
analytical expressions
expressions and
results.relative the finite
As canerror be seenelement models
from Table for the re-entrant
honeycombs has been achieved. The maximum for different cell1,angles
a goodisagreement
7.3% and
honeycombs
between the has been achieved.
analytical expressions The and maximum
the finite relative
element error
models forfordifferent
the cell angles
re-entrant is 7.3% and
honeycombs has
when the cell angle is 45 , the numerical result is almost the same as the theoretical value. The
when the cell angle is 45 , the numerical result is almost the same as the theoretical value. The
Materials 2016, 9, 900 4 of 13

been achieved. The maximum relative error for different cell angles is 7.3% and when the cell angle is
45 , the numerical result is almost the same as the theoretical value. The comparison proves that the
hypothesis stated above is correct and the accuracy of the FE models can be guaranteed.
Materials 2016, 9, 900 4 of 13

Table 1. Comparison
comparison of the
proves that the Poissons
hypothesis ratio above
stated between the FE and
is correct models and analytical
the accuracy of theexpressions.
FE models can
be guaranteed.
Cell Angle = 7.5 = 10 = 15 = 30 = 37 = 45
Table 1. Comparison
FE Model 3.71of the Poissons
2.88ratio between the FE models
2.06 and analytical
1.06 expressions. 0.49
0.80
Theory 7.5
Cell Angle 4.00 3.00
10 2.00
15 37
301.00 45 0.50
0.75
FE Model
Relative Error 3.71
7.3% 2.88
4.0% 2.06
3.2% 1.06
6.1% 0.80 7.0% 0.49 0.2%
Theory 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.75 0.50
Relative Error 7.3% 4.0% 3.2% 6.1% 7.0% 0.2%
2.3. Linear Static Properties
2.3. Linear
For a smallStatic Properties
load, the solid material is in the elastic range and the FE model is a linear structure.
Within this Forelastic
a smallrange, thesolid
load, the staticmaterial
load ofis1in
Nthe
was applied
elastic rangeonand
thethe
faceplates
FE modeland is a the maximum
linear structure.static
von Mises
Withinstress of therange,
this elastic FE models were
the static obtained
load through
of 1 N was applied the
onstatic analysisand
the faceplates by MSC/Nastran
the maximum static software.
von
In this Misesthree
paper, stressseries
of theofFE
FEmodels
modelswere obtained through
for different Poissons theratios
staticmarked
analysis as byModel-I,
MSC/Nastran
Model-II,
software. Inwere
and Model-III, this paper, three
studied. Theseries of FE models
geometric for different
parameters of thePoissons
honeycombs ratios in
marked
these as Model-I,
three series are
Model-II, and Model-III, were studied. The geometric parameters of the honeycombs
proportional to each other. For example, in Model-I, there are three different FE models with in these three
the cell
series are proportional to each other. For example, in Model-I, there are three different FE models
height 2lcos = 42 mm and the cell thickness t1 = 0.5 mm, t2 = 1 mm and t3 = 2 mm, respectively, while
with the cell height 2 lcos 42 mm and the cell thickness t1 = 0.5 mm, t2 = 1 mm and t3 = 2 mm,
in Model-II, the cell height is 84 mm and the cell thickness are 1 mm, 2 mm, and 4 mm, respectively,
respectively, while in Model-II, the cell height is 84 mm and the cell thickness are 1 mm, 2 mm, and 4
and somm,on.respectively,
The effects of theso
and Poissons
on. Theratio andofrelative
effects densityratio
the Poissons of theandhoneycombs on theofmaximum
relative density the
stresshoneycombs
of the XX component,
on the maximummaximum stress
stress of the XXof component,
the YY component,
maximumand maximum
stress of the YYvon Mises stress
component,
are shown in Figures
and maximum von36, respectively.
Mises stress are shown in Figures 36, respectively.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 3. Maximum stress of the XX component versus the Poissons ratio: (a) Model-I; (b) Model-II;
Figure 3. Maximum stress of the XX component versus the Poissons ratio: (a) Model-I; (b) Model-II;
(c) Model-III.
(c) Model-III.
Materials 2016, 9, 900 5 of 13
Materials 2016, 9, 900 5 of 13
Materials 2016, 9, 900 5 of 13

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

(c)
(c)
Figure 4. Maximum stress of the YY component versus the Poissons ratio: (a) Model-I; (b) Model-II;
Figure 4. Maximum stress of the YY component versus the Poissons ratio: (a) Model-I; (b) Model-II;
Figure 4. Maximum stress of the YY component versus the Poissons ratio: (a) Model-I; (b) Model-II;
(c) Model-III.
(c) Model-III.
(c) Model-III.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

(c)
(c)
Figure 5. Maximum von Mises stress versus the Poissons ratio: (a) Model-I; (b) Model-II; (c)
Figure 5. Maximum von Mises stress versus the Poissons ratio: (a) Model-I; (b) Model-II; (c)
Model-III.
Figure 5. Maximum von Mises stress versus the Poissons ratio: (a) Model-I; (b) Model-II; (c) Model-III.
Model-III.
Materials 2016, 9, 900 6 of 13
Materials 2016, 9, 900 6 of 13

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure
Figure 6.
6. Maximum
Maximumvon
vonMises
Misesstress
stressversus
versusthe
therelative density:
relative (a)(a)
density: Model-I; (b)(b)
Model-I; Model-II andand
Model-II (c)
Model-III.
(c) Model-III.

In Figures 35, it can be seen that, for a constant cell thickness, the maximum static stress of the
In Figures 35, it can be seen that, for a constant cell thickness, the maximum static stress of the
honeycombs increases nonlinearly with the decrease of the Poissons ratio and the XX component
honeycombs increases nonlinearly with the decrease of the Poissons ratio and the XX component
stress is nearly three times more than the stress of the YY component. In Figure 6, the maximum
stress is nearly three times more than the stress of the YY component. In Figure 6, the maximum static
static stress increases linearly with the increase of the relative density. The honeycombs with small
stress increases linearly with the increase of the relative density. The honeycombs with small thickness
thickness are much more sensitive to the Poissons ratio and relative density. That is, increasing the
are much more sensitive to the Poissons ratio and relative density. That is, increasing the cell thickness
cell thickness can significantly reduce the maximum static stress of the honeycombs with small
can significantly reduce the maximum static stress of the honeycombs with small Poissons ratio. It also
Poissons ratio. It also could be found that honeycombs zooming does not affect these conclusions.
could be found that honeycombs zooming does not affect these conclusions. Furthermore, through
Furthermore, through the calculation of these results, an empirical formula is derived to accurately
the calculation of these results, an empirical formula is derived to accurately predict the maximum
predict the maximum stress component and maximum von Mises stress of the honeycombs with
stress component and maximum von Mises stress of the honeycombs with different scales, which can
different scales, which can be written as:
be written as:
1 0 =n2 /n2 (4)
(4)
1 0

where 0 0isisthe
where themaximum
maximumstatic
staticstress
stress
ofof the
the initial
initial honeycombs,
honeycombs, 1 is the
is1the maximum
maximum static
static stress
stress of
of the
the honeycombs scaling up or down, and n is the
honeycombs scaling up or down, and n is the scaling factor. scaling factor.

2.4. Nonlinear Static Properties

There are two possible
possible failure mechanisms
mechanisms for the the honeycombs
honeycombs during
during compression:
compression: buckling
and plastic
plasticdeformation.
deformation.Both Bothofof these
these were
were investigated
investigated in this
in this paperpaper andresults
and the the results
show thatshow that
plastic
plastic deformation
deformation of the re-entrant
of the re-entrant honeycombs honeycombs
takes place takes place
before the before
buckling.theTaking
buckling. Taking the
the honeycomb
honeycomb
with with
cell angle = 45 , cell
cellangle height
45 ,2lcos
cell height 2 lcosand
= 42 mm, 42
cell mm, and cell
thickness t = thickness
1 mm as ant = 1example,
mm as anif
example,
we do notifconsider
we do not the consider
plasticitythe plasticity
of the of the solid
solid material. When material. When thebecomes
the honeycomb honeycomb becomes
unstable, the
unstable,
maximumthe maximum
static stress isstatic
morestress
than is
300more
MPa. than
This300is MPa. This is because
impossible, impossible,
the because the of
yield point yield
the point
solid
of the solid material is only 208 MPa. For other models, situations are similar to this one. Therefore,
for the auxetic honeycombs in this paper, there is only one failure mechanism: plastic deformation.
Materials 2016, 9, 900 7 of 13

material is only
Materials 2016, 9, 900208 MPa. For other models, situations are similar to this one. Therefore, for the auxetic
7 of 13
honeycombs in this paper, there is only one failure mechanism: plastic deformation.
In addition to the compression, when the tensile load is large enough, the plastic strain of the
honeycombs will also take place. As a result, elastic-plastic properties of the honeycombs under
place. As
compression and tension were studied, respectively, in this paper to forecast the ultimate bearing
capacity of the cells. We assume that when the residual strain of the honeycombs is more than 0.2%,
the solid material is in the plastic zone and the pressure added added at
at this
this time
time is
is the
the ultimate
ultimate load.
load.
Figure 7 shows
shows the therelationship
relationshipbetween
betweenthe
thePoissons
Poissons ratio
ratio and
and thethe ultimate
ultimate bearing
bearing capacity
capacity of
of the
the honeycombs.
honeycombs.

(a) (b)
Figure 7.
Figure 7. The
The ultimate
ultimate bearing
bearing capacity
capacity of
of the
the honeycombs
honeycombs for
for different
different Poissons
Poissons ratios
ratios under
under (a)
(a)
compression and (b) tension.
compression and (b) tension.

As indicated in Figure 7, along with decreasing values of the Poissons ratio, the ultimate
As indicated in Figure 7, along with decreasing values of the Poissons ratio, the ultimate bearing
bearing capacity of the honeycombs decreases linearly under both compression and tension
capacity of the honeycombs decreases linearly under both compression and tension conditions. It can
conditions. It can be seen that the tensile ultimate bearing capacity is higher than the compressed
be seen that the tensile ultimate bearing capacity is higher than the compressed one and when the
one and when the Poissons ratio is larger than 1, the cell thickness has a major influence over the
Poissons ratio is larger than 1, the cell thickness has a major influence over the ultimate bearing
ultimate bearing capacity of the honeycombs. For a constant Poissons ratio, the greater the cell
capacity of the honeycombs. For a constant Poissons ratio, the greater the cell thickness, the better
thickness, the better the bearing capacity. A similar conclusion can be found in Figure 7 that scaling
the bearing capacity. A similar conclusion can be found in Figure 7 that scaling the honeycombs up
the honeycombs up or down does not affect the ultimate bearing capacity of the material. In
or down does not affect the ultimate bearing capacity of the material. In summary, as for foldable,
summary, as for foldable, equal-height, re-entrant hexagonal honeycombs, when the Poissons ratio
equal-height, re-entrant hexagonal honeycombs, when the Poissons ratio and relative density are kept
and relative density are kept constant, the ultimate bearing capacity of the auxetic material is a
constant, the ultimate bearing capacity of the auxetic material is a scale-independent property.
scale-independent property.
3. Effects of Parameters on Vibration Reduction Performance of the Auxetic Cellular Material
3. Effects of Parameters on Vibration Reduction Performance of the Auxetic Cellular Material
Vibration performance is of great practical importance, as vibration of continuous systems with
Vibration performance is of great practical importance, as vibration of continuous systems with
constraints implies cyclic stresses and inevitable fatigue damage. Compared with traditional systems,
constraints implies cyclic stresses and inevitable fatigue damage. Compared with traditional
auxetic systems decrease the propagation of vibrations more efficiently and exhibit higher dynamic
systems, auxetic systems decrease the propagation of vibrations more efficiently and exhibit higher
stiffness [3]. Numerical analysis and experimental verifications for the vibration performance of the
dynamic stiffness [3]. Numerical analysis and experimental verifications for the vibration
foldable, equal-height, re-entrant honeycombs were carried out in this section. A reasonable agreement
performance of the foldable, equal-height, re-entrant honeycombs were carried out in this section. A
between the finite element results and the experimental data was obtained.
reasonable agreement between the finite element results and the experimental data was obtained.
3.1. Numerical Analysis
3.1. Numerical Analysis
In this section, for decreasing the boundary effect, we rebuilt the FE models to analyze the dynamic
In this section,
characteristics of the for decreasing
re-entrant the boundary
hexagonal effect,The
honeycombs. we models
rebuilt were
the FE models
made to analyze and
of seven-layer the
dynamic honeycombs
five-row characteristics ofcell
with theangles
re-entrant
withinhexagonal
the range honeycombs. The
45 < < 0 , as models
shown were8.made
in Figure of
In order
seven-layer and five-row honeycombs with cell angles within the range 45 < < 0,
to study the influence of scales, we prepared two series of the models marked as initial models and as shown in
Figure 8. In order to study the influence of scales, we prepared two series of the models marked
scale-up models. The relationship between the two series is that the cell height of the latter is two times as
initial models and scale-up models. The relationship between the two series is that the cell height of
the latter is two times that of the former. The solid materials of the honeycombs are the same as the
ones in Section 2.2. The frequency response analysis using MSC/Nastran software was done by
fixing one end of the models while applying an axial unit exciting force at the other end with the
Materials 2016, 9, 900 8 of 13

that of the former. The solid materials of the honeycombs are the same as the ones in Section 2.2. The
frequency response
Materials 2016, 9, 900 analysis using MSC/Nastran software was done by fixing one end of the models 8 of 13
Materials 2016, 9, 900
while applying an axial unit exciting force at the other end with the sweep bandwidth of 10 Hz100 8 of 13
Hz.
The
sweepacceleration
bandwidth vibration level difference
of 10 Hz100 of the centervibration
Hz. The acceleration cell was used
leveltodifference
evaluate the dynamic
of the centerbehavior
cell was
sweep
of the bandwidth
auxetic of 10 Hz100
honeycombs, not Hz. for
only Thethe
acceleration
conveniencevibration
of level but
measure, difference
also forof the
the center cell
decrease was
of error.
used to evaluate the dynamic behavior of the auxetic honeycombs, not only for the convenience of
usedeffects
The to evaluate the dynamic
of parameters behavior of the auxetic
on vibration honeycombs,re-entrant
not onlyhexagonal
for the convenience of
measure, but also for the decrease reduction
of error. performance
The effects of the
parameters on honeycombs
vibration reduction
measure,
are but
shown in of also
Figure for
9. the decrease of error. The effects of parameters on vibration reduction
performance the re-entrant hexagonal honeycombs are shown in Figure 9.
performance of the re-entrant hexagonal honeycombs are shown in Figure 9.

Figure 8. The
The FE
FE model
model for
for the
the dynamic
dynamic analysis
analysis of the
the auxetic honeycombs.
honeycombs.
Figure
Figure 8.
8. The FE model for the dynamic analysis of
of the auxetic
auxetic honeycombs.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 9. Acceleration vibration level difference of the center cell against the Poissons ratio for
Figure 9. Acceleration vibration level difference of the center cell against the Poissons ratio for
Figure Acceleration
9. scales:
different vibration
(a) initial level
models; (b)difference of the center cell against the Poissons ratio for different
scale-up models.
different
scales: (a)scales:
initial (a) initial(b)
models; models; (b) models.
scale-up scale-up models.
As shown in Figure 9, for different cell thickness, the relationship between the vibration level
As shown in Figure 9, for different cell thickness, the relationship between the vibration level
difference and the
As shown Poissons
in Figure ratio
9, for of the honeycombs
different is complex.
cell thickness, The curves
the relationship can be
between thedivided intolevel
vibration two
difference and the Poissons ratio of the honeycombs is complex. The curves can be divided into two
parts around
difference andvthe21 1.5 for both initial models and scale-up models. For the two parts, along with
Poissons ratio of the honeycombs is complex. The curves can be divided into
parts around v 21 1.5 for both initial models and scale-up models. For the two parts, along with
two parts around vPoissons
the decrease of the ratio,
21 = 1.5 ratio,
the initial
for both vibration leveland
models difference
scale-up ofmodels.
the centerForcell
theincreases
two parts,first and
along
the decrease of the Poissons the vibration level difference of the center cell increases first and
then decreases when the cell thickness is kept constant. When the Poissons ratio is larger
with the decrease of the Poissons ratio, the vibration level difference of the center cell increases first than 1.5,
then decreases when the cell thickness is kept constant. When the Poissons ratio is larger than 1.5,
the thinner
and the cell when
then decreases thickness is, thickness
the cell the better isthe dynamic
kept performance
constant. of the honeycombs
When the Poissons willthan
ratio is larger be.
the thinner the cell thickness is, the better the dynamic performance of the honeycombs will be.
Conversely,
when it is smaller than 1.5, increasing the cell thickness leads to
1.5, the thinner the cell thickness is, the better the dynamic performance of the honeycombs will an increase in the
Conversely, when it is smaller than 1.5, increasing the cell thickness leads to an increase in the
vibration
be. level difference
Conversely, when it isof the honeycombs.
smaller Moreover, the
than 1.5, increasing changing the scaleleads
cell thickness of thetohoneycombs
an increase in hasthea
vibration level difference of the honeycombs. Moreover, changing the scale of the honeycombs has a
great influence
vibration on the
level difference vibration level difference
of the honeycombs. of thin-walled
Moreover, changinghoneycombs, especially
the scale of especially
the honeycombsfor the ones
great influence on the vibration level difference of thin-walled honeycombs, for the has
ones a
with ainfluence
great small Poissons ratio. For level
on the vibration the thick-walled
difference ofhoneycombs,
thin-walled however,
honeycombs, when the Poissons
especially ratio
for the onesis
with a small Poissons ratio. For the thick-walled honeycombs, however, when the Poissons ratio is
largera than
with small 2, their dynamic
Poissons ratio. Forperformance
the is almost
thick-walled a scale-independent
honeycombs, however, property
when the and withratio
Poissons the
larger than 2, their dynamic performance is almost a scale-independent property and with the
increase of the cell thickness, the differences among the models decrease.
increase of the cell thickness, the differences among the models decrease.
3.2. Experimental Testing
3.2. Experimental Testing
Samples were manufactured by welding different thickness steel plates according to the
Samples were manufactured by welding different thickness steel plates according to the
blueprint, shown in Figures 1012. The parameters of the samples are consistent with the initial
blueprint, shown in Figures 1012. The parameters of the samples are consistent with the initial
Materials 2016, 9, 900 9 of 13

is larger than 2, their dynamic performance is almost a scale-independent property and with the
increase of the cell thickness, the differences among the models decrease.

3.2. Experimental Testing

Samples were manufactured by welding different thickness steel plates according to the blueprint,
shown in Figures 1012. The parameters of the samples are consistent with the initial models mentioned
Materials 2016, 9, 900 9 of 13
in Section
Materials2.1.
2016,For
9, 900each cell angle, two samples with cell thicknesses of 1 mm and 2 mm are prepared,
9 of 13
models mentioned
respectively. The samples in Section
were 2.1.
fixedForon each
thecell
testangle,
bench two samples
and loaded with cell thicknesses
vertically (Figureof13).1 mm and
Frequency
models
2 mm
response mentioned
are prepared,
testing was done in Section 2.1. ForThe
respectively.
to analyze each
the cell angle,
samples
dynamic were two samples
fixed
characteristicson the with
of thecell
test thicknesses
bench
samples. andThe of
loaded 1 mm
main and
vertically
instruments
2 (Figure
mm are13). prepared, respectively. The samples were fixed on thethe testdynamic
bench and loaded vertically
used are a signal generator (B and K 1027, B and K, Donghuatest Inc., Jingjiang, China), athe
Frequency response testing was done to analyze characteristics of power
(Figure
samples. 13).TheFrequency response used
main instruments testing arewas done generator
a signal to analyze(Bthe dynamic characteristics of the
amplifier (MI-2004, ECON Technologies, Hangzhou, China), and K 1027, B
an electro-dynamic and K, Donghuatest
shaker (ET 139,
samples. The main
Inc., Jingjiang, instruments
China), a power used are a signal
amplifier generator
(MI-2004, ECON(BTechnologies,
and K 1027, BHangzhou,and K, Donghuatest
China), an
Labworks
Inc.,
Inc., Costa Mesa,
Jingjiang, China),
CA, USA), a laser sensor (PSV-300F, Polytec, Beijing, China), andan a DASP
electro-dynamic shakera (ETpower139,amplifier
Labworks(MI-2004,
Inc., CostaECONMesa,Technologies,
CA, USA), a Hangzhou,
laser sensorChina),
(PSV-300F,
signal acquisition
electro-dynamic card
Polytec, Beijing,shaker
(DH5920N,
China),(ET and139,
Donghuatest
Labworks
a DASP signalInc.,
Inc., Jingjiang,
Costa Mesa,
acquisition
China). In
CA, USA), Donghuatest
card (DH5920N,
addition,
a laser sensor accelerometers
(PSV-300F,
Inc., Jingjiang,
(B and K 4366,
Polytec,
China). B and
Beijing, China),
In addition, K,accelerometers
Donghuatest
and a DASP (B Inc.,
signal Jingjiang,
andacquisition
K 4366, B and China)
card and force
K,(DH5920N,
Donghuatest sensors
Donghuatest
Inc., (5110, Donghuatest
Inc., China)
Jingjiang, Jingjiang,and
Inc.,China).
Jingjiang,
force sensors China)
(5110,were
In addition, used to Inc.,
accelerometers
Donghuatest collect
(B and the signals
K 4366,
Jingjiang, B and
China) ofK, different
used measuring
Donghuatest
were Inc., the
to collect points
signalsin
Jingjiang, ofthe
China) frequency
and
different
force
domain. sensors
The block
measuring (5110,diagram
points inDonghuatest
the frequency Inc.,
of the Jingjiang,
excited
domain. andChina)
The block were used
measured
diagram to collect
analysis
of the system
excited the
and signals of different
ismeasured
shown in Figure 14.
analysis
measuring
system is points
shown in
in the frequency
Figure 14. domain.
Three The
experiments block diagram
were done of
for the
each
Three experiments were done for each sample with different exciting forces, ranging from 4 N to 8 N excited
sample andwithmeasured
different analysis
exciting
withsystem
forces, isranging
the sweep shown in Figure
from
bandwidth 4 N to 14.
of Three
810
N with
Hz100experiments
the sweep
Hz. The were
rootdone
bandwidth offor
mean each
10square
Hz100 sample
Hz.
of the with
The different
root
vibration excitingof at
meanacceleration
square
forces,
the ranging from
vibration 4 N to 8 N
acceleration atwith
each thefrequency
sweep bandwidth
(10 Hz100 of 10Hz)
Hz100was Hz. The root mean
calculated with square
the of
center
each frequency (10 Hz100 Hz) was calculated with the center frequency of the 1/3 octave bands
the vibration
frequency of acceleration
the 1/3 octave at each
bandsfrequency
based on (10 ISOHz100
standards. Hz) Thewasexperimental
calculated with teststhe
have center
been
based on ISO standards. The experimental tests have been conducted at the Engineering Mechanics
frequency
conductedofatthe 1/3 octave bands
the Engineering MechanicsbasedExperimental
on ISO standards.
Center ofThe experimental
Shanghai Jiao Tong tests have been
University. The
Experimental
conducted Center of Shanghai Jiao Tong University.CenterThe results are listed in Tables 2 and 3 and the
results are listed in Tables 2 and 3 and the comparison of the results between the FE modelsThe
at the Engineering Mechanics Experimental of Shanghai Jiao Tong University. and
comparison
results are
experiments
oflisted
the results
are in
between
Tables
shown and the
in 2Figure 315.
andFEthemodels and experiments
comparison of the resultsare shownthe
between in Figure
FE models 15. and
experiments are shown in Figure 15.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 10. Testing samples with the cell angle 15 : (a) geometric dimensions; (b) photo.
Figure 10. Testing samples with the cell angle = 15 : (a) geometric dimensions; (b) photo.
Figure 10. Testing samples with the cell angle 15 : (a) geometric dimensions; (b) photo.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 11. Testing samples with the cell angle 30 : (a) geometric dimensions; (b) photo.
Figure 11. Testing samples with the cell angle 30 : (a) geometric dimensions; (b) photo.
Figure 11. Testing samples with the cell angle = 30 : (a) geometric dimensions; (b) photo.
Materials 2016, 9, 900 10 of 13
Materials 2016, 9, 900 10 of 13
Materials 2016, 9, 900 10 of 13
Materials 2016, 9, 900 10 of 13

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 12. Testing (a) with the cell angle 45: (a) geometric(b)
samples dimensions; (b) photo.
Figure 12. samples with the cell angle =
Figure 12. Testing samples with the cell angle 45 : (a) geometric dimensions;
Testing 45 : (a) geometric dimensions; (b)
(b) photo.
photo.
Figure 12. Testing samples with the cell angle 45 : (a) geometric dimensions; (b) photo.

Figure 13. Frequency response experiment of the auxetic honeycombs.

Figure 13. Frequency response experiment of the auxetic honeycombs.
Figure 13. Frequency
Figure 13. Frequency response
response experiment
experiment of
of the
the auxetic
auxetic honeycombs.
honeycombs.

Figure 14. Block diagram of the excited and measured analysis system.
Figure 14. Block diagram of the excited and measured analysis system.
Figure 14.
Figure 14. Block
Block diagram
diagram of
of the
the excited
excited and
and measured
measured analysis
analysis system.
system.
Table 2. Experimental results of the vibration level difference under different exciting forces with the
Table 2. Experimental results of the vibration level difference under different exciting forces with the
cell thickness
Table t = 1 mm (dB).
2. Experimental results of the vibration level difference under different exciting forces with the
cell
Tablethickness t = 1 mmresults
2. Experimental (dB). of the vibration level difference under different exciting forces with the
cell
Force thickness t = 1 mm (dB).
cell thickness t4=N1 mm (dB).6 N 8N Average Relative Error with FEM Result
Force 4N 6N 8N Average Relative Error with FEM Result
Force
15 1.78
4N 2.18
6N 2.75
8N 2.24
Average 13.44%
Relative Error with FEM Result
15 Force2.04
1.78 4 N 2.18 2.75 2.24 13.44%
30
15 1.78 6N
2.34
2.18 8 N 3.05
2.75Average 2.48
2.24 Relative Error with FEM
9.61%Result
13.44%
30 2.04 2.34 3.05 2.48 9.61%
45
30 = 15

2.73
2.04 1.78 2.91
2.18
2.34 2.75 3.01
3.05 2.24 2.88
2.48 13.44%12.64%
9.61%
45 = 302.73
2.04 2.91
2.34 3.05 3.01 2.48 2.88 9.61% 12.64%
45 2.73
2.91 3.01 2.88 12.64%
= 45
Table 3.Experimental 2.73
results 2.91 3.01
of the vibration level2.88 12.64%
difference under different exciting forces with the
Table
cell 3. Experimental
thickness t = 2 mm results of the vibration level difference under different exciting forces with the
(dB).
Table
cell 3. Experimental
thickness t = 2 mm results
(dB). of the vibration level difference under different exciting forces with the
cell
Force thickness t
4N= 2 mm (dB).6 N 8N Average Relative Error with FEM Result
Force 4N 6N 8N Average Relative Error with FEM Result
Force
15 1.83
4N 1.99
6N 2.34
8N 2.06
Average 16.69%
Relative Error with FEM Result
15 1.83 1.99 2.34 2.06 16.69%
30
15 2.73
1.83 2.85
1.99 3.13
2.34 2.90
2.06 2.98%
16.69%
30 2.73 2.85 3.13 2.90 2.98%
45
30 2.27
2.73 2.46
2.85 2.90
3.13 2.54
2.90 7.32%
2.98%
45 2.27 2.46 2.90 2.54 7.32%
45 2.27 2.46 2.90 2.54 7.32%
Materials 2016, 9, 900 11 of 13

Table 3. Experimental results of the vibration level difference under different exciting forces with the
cell thickness t = 2 mm (dB).

Force 4N 6N 8N Average Relative Error with FEM Result

= 15 1.83 1.99 2.34 2.06 16.69%
= 30 2.73 2.85 3.13 2.90 2.98%
= 45 2.27 2.46 2.90 2.54 7.32%
Materials 2016, 9, 900 11 of 13

(a) (b)
Figure 15.
Figure 15. Comparison
Comparison of of the
the results
results between
between the
the FE
FE models and experiments
models and experiments for
for different
different cell
cell
thicknesses: (a) t = 1 mm and (b) t = 2 mm.
thicknesses: (a) t = 1 mm and (b) t = 2 mm.

Tables 2 and 3 show that increasing or decreasing the exciting force has a slight effect on the
Tables 2 and 3 show that increasing or decreasing the exciting force has a slight effect on the
vibration level difference: with the increase of the exciting force, the vibration level difference
vibration level difference: with the increase of the exciting force, the vibration level difference increases.
increases. In fact, in the elastic range of the solid material, the model is linear and the vibration level
In fact, in the elastic range of the solid material, the model is linear and the vibration level difference
difference will not change with the exciting forces. The main reason for this discrepancy between the
will not change with the exciting forces. The main reason for this discrepancy between the theory and
theory and the experiment is that, for the limitation of the honeycomb dimensions, discontinuous
the experiment is that, for the limitation of the honeycomb dimensions, discontinuous welding may
welding may exist in some portions which will affect the propagation of vibrations. On the other
exist in some portions which will affect the propagation of vibrations. On the other hand, as seen in
hand, as seen in the two tables, some average values of the experiments are very close to the
the two tables, some average values of the experiments are very close to the numerical results, and
numerical results, and the maximum relative error is 16.69%, which exists in the model with
the maximum relative error is 16.69%, which exists in the model with = 15 and t = 1 mm. In
15 and t = 1 mm. In Figure 13 it can be found that experimental results are around the
Figure 13 it can be found that experimental results are around the numerical curves, which indicates
numerical curves, which indicates that the experimental results are credible. Additionally, Figure 15
that the experimental results are credible. Additionally, Figure 15 also shows that the discrete degree
also shows that the discrete degree of the data for the models with t = 2 mm is much smaller. This can
of the data for the models with t = 2 mm is much smaller. This can be attributed to the stiffness of the
be attributed to the stiffness of the honeycombs. Under the same exciting forces, the greater the cell
honeycombs. Under the same exciting forces, the greater the cell thickness is, the larger the stiffness
thickness is, the larger the stiffness of the honeycombs will be. The honeycombs with greater
of the honeycombs will be. The honeycombs with greater stiffness are much less easily influenced
stiffness are much less easily influenced by other factors, such as constraints and loading directions
by other factors, such as constraints and loading directions during the test. One of the defects of the
during the test. One of the defects of the experiments is that the samples in this paper are made by
experiments is that the samples in this paper are made by welding, which cannot ensure the whole
welding, which cannot ensure the whole quality of the honeycombs. In the future, casting or integral
quality of the honeycombs. In the future, casting or integral cutting may be a better choice.
cutting may be a better choice.
4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
In this paper, the effects of the Poissons ratio and relative density of foldable, equal-height,
In this paper, the effects of the Poissons ratio and relative density of foldable, equal-height,
re-entrant hexagonal honeycombs on the bearing capacity and vibration reduction performance of
re-entrant hexagonal honeycombs on the bearing capacity and vibration reduction performance of
auxetic cellular materials are studied numerically and experimentally.
auxetic cellular materials are studied numerically and experimentally.
For
For constant
constant cell
cell thickness,
thickness, the
the maximum
maximum static
static stress
stress of
of the
the honeycombs
honeycombs increases
increases nonlinearly
nonlinearly
with the decrease of the Poissons ratio, and decreases linearly with the decrease
with the decrease of the Poissons ratio, and decreases linearly with the decrease of the
of the relative
relative
density. density.
Along with decreasing values of the Poissons ratio, the ultimate bearing capacity of the
honeycombs decreases linearly under both compression and tension conditions, and the tensile
ultimate bearing capacity is higher than the compressed one.
When the Poissons ratio and relative density are kept constant, the ultimate bearing capacity of
the auxetic materials is scale-independent.
When the Poissons ratio is larger than 1.5, the thinner the cell thickness, the better the
dynamic performance of the honeycombs. Conversely, when it is smaller than 1.5, increasing
Materials 2016, 9, 900 12 of 13

Along with decreasing values of the Poissons ratio, the ultimate bearing capacity of the
honeycombs decreases linearly under both compression and tension conditions, and the tensile
ultimate bearing capacity is higher than the compressed one.
When the Poissons ratio and relative density are kept constant, the ultimate bearing capacity of
the auxetic materials is scale-independent.
When the Poissons ratio is larger than 1.5, the thinner the cell thickness, the better the dynamic
performance of the honeycombs. Conversely, when it is smaller than 1.5, increasing the cell
thickness leads to an increase in the vibration level difference of the honeycombs. Moreover,
changing the scale has a great influence on the dynamic performance of thin-walled honeycombs,
especially for the ones with small Poissons ratio.
To improve the accuracy of experiments, casting or integral cutting technologies are suggested
for the manufacture of experimental samples. In the near future, work will focus on the acoustic
characteristics and dispersive properties of the materials.

Acknowledgments: The support for this work, provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
under Grant 51479115 is gratefully acknowledged.
Author Contributions: Xiangwen Zhang and Deqing Yang conceived and designed the experiments;
Xiangwen Zhang performed the experiments; Xiangwen Zhang and Deqing Yang analyzed the data; Deqing Yang
contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools; Xiangwen Zhang wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Greaves, G.N. Poissons ratio over two centuries: Challenging hypotheses. Notes Rec. R. Soc. 2013, 67, 3758.
[CrossRef]
2. Evans, K.E.; Nkansah, M.A.; Hutchinson, I.J.; Rogers, S.C. Molecular network design. Nature 1991, 353,
124125. [CrossRef]
3. Grima, J.N.; Attard, D.; Gatt, R.; Cassar, R.N. A novel process for the manufacture of auxetic foams and for
their re-convention to conventional form. Adv. Eng. Mater. 2009, 11, 533535. [CrossRef]
4. Baughman, R.H.; Shacklette, J.M.; Zakhidev, A.A.; Stafstrm, S. Negative Poissons ratio as a common feature
of cubic metals. Nature 1998, 392, 362365. [CrossRef]
5. Scarpa, F.; Panayiotou, P.; Tomlinson, G. Numerical and experimental uniaxial loading on in-plane auxetic
honeycombs. J. Strain Anal. Eng. Des. 2000, 35, 383388. [CrossRef]
6. Ghaedizadeh, A.; Shen, J.; Ren, X.; Xie, Y.M. Tuning the performance of metallic auxetic metamaterials by
using buckling and plasticity. Materials 2016, 9, 54. [CrossRef]
7. Grima, J.N.; Attard, D.; Cassar, R.N.; Farrugia, L.; Trapani, L.; Gatt, R. On the mechanical properties and
auxetic potential of various organic networked polymers. Mol. Simul. 2008, 34, 11491158. [CrossRef]
8. Spagnoli, A.; Brighenti, R.; Lanfranchi, M.; Soncini, F. On the auxetic behaviour of metamaterials with
re-entrant cell structures. Proced. Eng. 2015, 109, 410417. [CrossRef]
9. Azoti, W.L.; Koutsawa, Y.; Bonfoh, N.; Lipinski, P.; Belouettar, S. Analytical modeling of multilayered
dynamic sandwich composites embedded with auxetic layers. Eng. Struct. 2013, 57, 248253. [CrossRef]
10. Alderson, K.L.; Pickles, A.P.; Neale, P.J.; Evans, K.E. Auxetic polyethylene: The effect of a negative Poissons
ratio on hardness. Acta Metall. Mater. 1994, 42, 22612266. [CrossRef]
11. Prawoto, Y. Seeing auxetic materials from the mechanics point of view: A structural review on the negative
Poissons ratio. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2012, 58, 140153. [CrossRef]
12. Chekkal, I.; Remillat, C.; Scarpa, F. Acoustic properties of auxetic foams. High Perform. Struct. Mater. 2012,
124, 119129. [CrossRef]
13. Scarpa, F.; Ciffo, L.G.; Yates, J.R. Dynamic properties of high structural integrity auxetic open cell foam.
Smart Mater. Struct. 2004, 13, 4956. [CrossRef]
14. Tee, K.F.; Spadoni, A.; Scarpa, F.; Ruzzene, M. Vibroacoustics and wave propagation of novel chiral
honeycombs. In Proceedings of the Active and Passive Smart Structures and Integrated Systems, San Diego,
CA, USA, 9 March 2008.
Materials 2016, 9, 900 13 of 13

15. Scarpa, F.; Tomlinson, G. Vibro-acoustics and damping analysis of negative Poissons ratio honeycombs.
In Proceedings of the Smart Structures and Materials, San Diego, CA, USA, 1 March 1998; pp. 339348.
16. Alderson, A.; Alderson, K.L. Auxetic materials. In Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Birmingham, UK, 1 April 2007; pp. 565575. [CrossRef]
17. Prall, D.; Lakes, R.S. Properties of a chiral honeycomb with Poissons ratio 1. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 1997, 39,
305314. [CrossRef]
18. Zhang, X.W.; Yang, D.Q. Numerical and experimental studies of a light-weight auxetic cellular vibration
isolation base. Shock Vib. 2016. [CrossRef]
19. Grima, J.N.; Gatt, R.; Farrugia, P.S.; Alderson, A.; Evans, K.E. Auxetic cellular materials and structures. In
Proceedings of the ASME 2005 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Orlando, FL,
USA, 511 November 2005; pp. 489495. [CrossRef]
20. Dascalu, C.; Bilbie, G.; Agiasofitou, E.K. Damage and size effects in elastic solids: A homogenization
approach. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2008, 45, 409430. [CrossRef]
21. Gilat, R.; Aboudi, J. Behavior of elastoplastic auxetic microstructural arrays. Materials 2013, 6, 726737.
[CrossRef]
22. Wan, H.; Ohtaki, H.; Kotosaka, S.; Hu, G. A study of negative Poissons ratios in auxetic honeycombs based
on a large deflection model. Eur. J. Mech. A-Sol. 2004, 23, 95106. [CrossRef]
23. Liu, W.; Wang, N.; Huang, J.; Zhong, H. The effect of irregularity, residual convex units and stresses on
the effective mechanical properties of 2D auxetic cellular structure. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2014, 609, 2633.
[CrossRef]
24. Grima, J.N.; Manicaro, E.; Attard, D. Auxetic Behavior from Connected Different-Sized Squares and Rectangles;
Proceedings of the Royal Society A: London, UK, 2011; pp. 439458. [CrossRef]
25. Chetcuti, E.; Ellul, B.; Manicaro, E.; Brincat, J.; Attard, D.; Gatt, R.; Grima, J.N. Modeling auxetic foams
through semi-rigid rotating triangles. Phys. Status Solidi (B) 2014, 251, 297306. [CrossRef]
26. Rad, M.S.; Ahmad, Z.; Alias, A. Computational approach in formulating mechanical characteristics of 3D
star honeycomb auxetic structure. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2015. [CrossRef]
27. Grima, J.N.; Alderson, A.; Gatt, R.; Evans, K.E. On the potential of connected stars as auxetic systems.
Mol. Simul. 2005, 31, 925935. [CrossRef]
28. Gibson, L.J.; Ashby, M.F. Cellular Solids: Structure and Properties, 2nd ed.; Pergamon Press: London, UK, 1988;
pp. 93159.
29. Masters, I.G.; Evans, K.E. Models for the elastic deformation of honeycombs. Compos. Struct. 1996, 35,
403408. [CrossRef]
30. Mir, M.; Ali, M.N.; Sami, J.; Ansari, U. Review of mechanics and applications of auxetic structures.
Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2014. [CrossRef]

2016 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).