ORIGINAL PAPER
Auxetics and Other Systems of Anomalous Characteristics
Computational Simulation and Optimization of
Functionally Graded Auxetic Structures Made From
Inverted Tetrapods
Nejc Novak,* Matej Vesenjak, and Zoran Ren
Auxetic cellular materials show great potential for improved properties in
case of impact loading. Due to this potential, auxetic structures made from
inverted tetrapods are extensively analyzed experimentally and computation-
ally. The built samples are compressed in two orthogonal directions to
determine their base mechanical properties and deformation mechanisms.
The lattice computational model is developed and validated using the
experimental results. A new shape optimization procedure to develop new
auxetic structures with functionally graded geometry is proposed and tested
in a case study. With introduction of the functionally graded geometry the
response of the auxetic structure can be tailored to a particular loading
condition, which is especially important in impact or ballistic performance of
modern composite materials.
1. Introduction
Auxetic materials are modern materials which exhibit negative
Poisson’s ratio, that is they get wider when stretched and thinner
when compressed.[1] The name originates from Greek word
“auxetos” and means “tends to increase”.[2] The effect of negative
Poisson’s ratio can be a consequence of the internal structure
deformation,[3,4] inter-particle interactions (many body inter-
actions)[5,6] or special conditions applied to the system[7,8] and
can be found in some natural materials.[9,10] Auxetic materials
have enhanced properties in: stiffness, fracture toughness,
energy absorption and damping.[11] They have an improved
indentation resilience, since the auxetic materials converge
towards the impact zone, while non-auxetic materials “flow”
away from it. This behavior could be used to enhance properties
in ballistic protection, because materials become denser in the
impact area and offer greater resistance to impact.[12]
Most common 2D geometries of auxetic structures are: re-
entrant, chiral, rotating units and some others described in
Ref. [11]. The three dimensional geometries of the auxetic
structures are very complicated due to required complex
N. Novak, Prof. M. Vesenjak, Prof. Z. Ren
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maribor, Smetanova
ul. 17, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
E-mail: n.novak@um.si
The ORCID identification number(s) for the author(s) of this article
can be found under https://doi.org/10.1002/pssb.201600753.
DOI: 10.1002/pssb.201600753
Phys. Status Solidi B 2017, 1600753 1600753 (1 of 7)
www.pss-b.com
deformation behavior and are thus
difficult to fabricate with conventional
methods (e.g., casting, milling). Thermo-
mechanical[3] or chemo-mechanical[13] pro-
cedures were developed for fabrication of
auxetic material. However, with these
procedures it is impossible to fabricate
structures with user defined arbitrary 3D
geometry. With Kirigami techniques com-
bined with glass, carbon, or kevlar fabrics it
is possible to fabricate 2D auxetic struc-
tures, which are extended in the third
dimension.[14] Unfortunately, these techni-
ques cannot be used to fabricate the
advanced arbitrary 3D structures. A very
promising way to fabricate complex 3D
auxetic structures with arbitrary geome-
tries is by using the layer additive
manufacturing.[15] Consequently, if there
is a possibility to fabricate any arbitrary
auxetic structure, then such a structure can be optimized for a
particular application. Only a few optimization techniques were
used so far for optimization of the auxetic structures geometry:
development of the 3D auxetic structure with mathematical
optimization,[16] optimization of the Poisson’s ratio of 2D and 3D
re-entrant auxetic structures with genetic algorithm,[17] optimi-
zation of the 2D geometry of auxetic structure with mixed integer
programming,[18] topology optimization of the auxetic structure
core in sandwich structure.[19]
A step forward in the development of complex auxetic
geometries is the introduction of a graded internal geometry.
The idea of functionally graded materials is based on the
combination of different mechanical properties in different
sections of the structure where particular mechanical properties
are needed for desired response of the structure. This can be
easily achieved using layers with different geometrical and
mechanical properties, which are connected into a composite
plate or structure. In the case of cellular materials this can be
achieved even easier, as the layered graded geometry can be
obtained by changing only the strut diameters. In the case of
arranged auxetic structures built from hexagons or inverted
tetrapods,[15,20,21] the gradation can be also achieved by changing
the geometry of each layer in the auxetic structure. This was
originally presented by Lim et al.[22] and later extended by other
researchers for different fields of interest. In Refs. [23] and [24]
researchers analyzed vibroacoustic performance of a gradient
geometry, development and tensile tests of graded open-cell
© 2017 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.pss-b.com

foams are reported in Ref. [25], bending properties of sandwich

plates with graded and conventional auxetic core in Ref. [26], the
V-shaped auxetic material for blast protective deflector was
developed, optimized and tested in compression testing, drop
tower and in shock tube (based on these experiments
functionally graded structure concept was presented) in
Ref. [27], compression testing of sandwich plates with graded
and conventional auxetic core made with Kirigami technique in
Ref. [14].
In the case of an impact, functionally graded geometry is more
important at above-critical strain rates, where the main
deformation occurs only in the deformation front at contact
region with the impacting body due to inertia effects.[28]
Consequently, even if the material is the stiffest in the contact
region, the first deformation of structure will occur there and not
in the less stiff region elsewhere. The behavior at below-critical
strain rate is presented in Ref. [29], where graded structures with Figure 1. Geometry of inverted tetrapod and the design parameters for
changing strut thicknesses were fabricated by the Electron Beam optimization.
Melting method and tested in compression. A significant layer-
wise collapse mechanism (with the layer with the thinnest struts
collapsing first) has been observed. The structures with The six specimens were fabricated from the Ti-6Al-4V alloy
functionally graded geometry have many advantages in case powder by the selective electron-beam melting method (SEBM)
of dynamic loading, especially for tailoring the response of the at the Institute of Materials Science and Technology (WTM),
structure. This can be achieved using the optimization University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany.[15]
algorithms for optimization of different geometry parameters The investigated auxetic structure is inherently anisotropic
of auxetic structures, which has already been demonstrated for due to the ABAB stacking order. To determine its mechanical
quasi-static loading,[8–11] but not yet for the case of dynamic properties it is therefore necessary to apply the load in different
loading. Proper material models and boundary conditions for directions. The loading of the auxetic structure in directions X1
computational models should be developed very precisely to and X2 results in similar response of the structure, which has
achieve good correlation between optimization results and already been determined in Ref. [15] and also confirmed by
experimental validation in case of dynamic loading. The computer simulations. For determination of the compressive
mechanical characterization of material properties is much response of the tested auxetic structure in three characteristic
more complicated in the case of dynamic loading than in the case orthogonal directions (i.e., X1, X2, and X3) it is therefore
of quasi-static loading. necessary to test the samples only in two different loading
Due to brittle collapse of the base material of the investigated direction, that is directions X2 and X3, because the responses in
auxetic structure (Ti-6Al-4V fabricated with selective electron- directions X1 and X2 are very similar.
beam melting method), the quasi-static and dynamic responses
in case of compression loading are very similar, which justify the
use of quasi-static mechanical properties for preliminary
optimization task in development of new functionally graded
structures.

2. Experimental Section
2.1. Specimen Fabrication

The inverted tetrapods, Figure 1, are assembled in a particular

way to define the geometry of the investigated specimens,
Figure 2.
The tetrapods are connected at vertices (marked with the grey
dot in Figure 1) in building blocks that fill a plane. The planes are
stacked on top of each other by rotating the stacked layers by 60
.
This results in a typical ABAB stacking order with periodic
symmetry (Figure 2). The specimen’s inverted tetrapod dimen-
sions were (Figure 1): a ¼ 3.5 mm, h ¼ 3 mm, dh ¼ 0.5 mm, while
the circular cross-section diameter of the struts was 0.5 mm. The
whole specimen’s dimensions were 16.2  19.5  21.3 mm
(6  9  9 unit cells) in the X1, X2, and X3 directions, respectively. Figure 2. Auxetic structure assembled from inverted tetrapods.

Phys. Status Solidi B 2017, 1600753 1600753 (2 of 7) © 2017 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.pss-b.com

2.2. Compression Testing Table 1. Material parameters for material model MAT_153.

Uniaxial compression tests under quasi-static loading conditions ρ [kg m3] E [MPa] ν [] rd [] S [] t [] Dc []
were performed using a servo-hydraulic INSTRON 8801 testing 4430 60000 0.3 0.028 3.75 1 0.5
machine with position controlled cross-head rate of 0.1 mm s1,
according to the standard ISO 13314: 2011.[30] Three specimens
were tested in each direction with the maximum applied 3. Computational Modeling
macroscopic strain of 75–80%, where the specimens were able
to slide freely along the surface of compression plates of the Computational models were analyzed using the finite element
testing machine. The recorded load-displacement data were software system LS-DYNA R7.1.2 with an explicit solver. The Ls-
converted to engineering stress-strain data, using the initial PrePost system was used for pre- and post-processing.
specimen’s dimensions. The absorbed energy per unit volume
(strain energy density) was calculated by integrating the stress-
strain relationship. 3.1. Material Model
The results of compression testing in two different directions
are shown in Figure 3. The auxetic structure material behavior was described with the
As it can be seen from experimental testing results, the MAT_DAMAGE_3 (MAT_153) material model, which enables
response and the stress values at the stress plateau region in modeling of damage and failure also for beam finite elements.[31]
both loading directions are similar. However, a more detailed This material model is pressure-independent plasticity model with
analysis of the experiments showed that deformation mecha- isotropic and kinematic hardening. Linear isotropic hardening
nisms are quite different. The structure deforms controllably option was used in this work with the hardening law defined as:
and collapses mostly in the plane of maximum shear stress
when loaded in the direction X2. In contrast, a brittle layer-by- σ y ¼ σ y;0 þ Hr; ð1Þ
layer collapse was observed in the case of structure loading in
direction X3. This behavior is attributed appearance of local where σy,0 is the initial yield stress, H the isotropic hardening
buckling and sudden brittle failure of vertical struts after critical modulus and r the damage plastic strain. The material damage is
local buckling load is reached. introduced with isotropic damage scalar D, ranging between 0
The absorbed energy per unit volume results are given in and 1. D ¼ 0 represents a damage-free material RVE (Represen-
Table 3 (see Section 3.3). The amount of absorbed energy per tative Volume Element), while D ¼ 1 represents a fully fractured
unit volume (area under stress-strain curve) is comparable in material RVE. The evolution of the isotropic damage value
both directions. However, due to brittle layer-by-layer collapse related to ductile damage and fracture is defined as:
the energy absorption is lower in case of loading in X3 direction.  t
_ ¼ Y pl σm 1
D e when r > r d and > ; ð2Þ
S σ eq 3

where σσeqm is the stress triaxiality, rd is the damage threshold, S and

t are material constants and Y is the strain energy release rate
computed from the elasticity tensor Del and the elastic strain eel.
If two conditions given in Eq. (2) are not satisfied, there is no
evolution of the isotropic damage. The material model assumes
associated plastic flow.
The material parameters for the material model MAT_153
in Tables 1 and 2 were determined by inverse parametric
computational simulations to retrieve the same macroscopic
simulation results as those recorded in experimental testing. The
default values were used for material constants S, t and Dc.[31]
The top and bottom compression plates were modeled simply
as linear-elastic (material model MAT_ELASTIC) with the
following material parameters: the density ρ ¼ 7850 kg m3,
the Young’s modulus E ¼ 210 000 MPa and the Poisson’s
ratio ν ¼ 0.3.

Table 2. Effective stresses and strains defining the plastic behavior for
material model MAT_153.

σyield [MPa] σpeak[MPa] epl, peak []

700 750 0.05
Figure 3. Experimental results of compressive testing.

Phys. Status Solidi B 2017, 1600753 1600753 (3 of 7) © 2017 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com
Figure 4. Boundary conditions of the computational model.
3.2. Finite Element Mesh and Boundary Conditions
The Hughes-Liu beam finite elements with cross-section
integration (2  2 Gauss quadrature) were used to model the
tubular struts of the specimens. The mesh sensitivity analysis
was performed with three different finite element meshes. The
Belytschko-Tsay shell finite elements with two through shell
thickness integration points and the thickness of 1 mm were
used to model the compression plates.
The following boundary conditions were used: the bottom
compression plate has all degrees of freedom (DOF) fixed, the
top compression plate has prescribed velocity of 200 mm s1
toward the bottom plate (Figure 4). The node to surface contact
with friction (mfr,stat ¼ 0.36 and mfr,dyn ¼ 0.34) is defined between
plates and the auxetic structure. The general contact with friction
is defined between struts (beam finite elements).
The explicit time-integration was chosen to solve the problem
due to excessive amount of contact regions in the structure
during the deformation. This necessitates increase of the loading
plate velocity to reduce the accumulation of numerical
calculation error in the case of longer simulation time. The
velocity of the loading plate was chosen based on the verification
analysis of reaction forces on support and loading plate at
different impacting plate velocities (50 mm s1, 100 mm s1,
200 mm s1, 400 mm s1). The reaction forces on both plates
should be equal if quasi-static conditions during compression
testing are prescribed and additionally varying the velocity of the
loading plate should not affect the response (reaction force on
fixed plate) significantly. The mass scaling option was used to
increase the critical time step, with adding non-physical mass to
finite elements. Mass is added only to those smallest elements
whose time step would otherwise be less than user defined time
step size. The user defined time step size was determined using
additional parametric simulations.
3.3. Results of Computational Simulations and Comparison
With Experimental Data
A comparison between the results of the computational model
(reaction force on the support plate) and average experimental
results was performed to validate the computational model. The
Phys. Status Solidi B 2017, 1600753 1600753 (4 of 7)
www.pss-b.com
Figure 5. Comparison between computational and experimental results
(upper: loading direction X2, lower: loading direction X3).
comparison using engineering stress-strain data is shown in
Figure 5, where the load displacement data were converted to
engineering stress-strain data, using the initial specimen’s
dimensions.
A very good correlation between the experimental and
computational data can be observed in case of loading in direction
X2. In the case of loading direction X3 there is some discrepancy
between the computational and experimental results, since the
layer-wise collapse due to local strut buckling is much more
difficult to capture in the computational model. However, the
overall response, except the initial yield stress, shows similar
trends, which is also observed in the amount of absorbed strain
energy density, Table 3.
4. Optimization of the Auxetic Structure
Geometry
Validated computational models were used for further optimi-
zation of auxetic structure geometry to obtain user defined
response during compression loading by applying the concept of
functionally graded internal geometry. The structure does not
need to be auxetic to achieve such behavior. However, in the case
Table 3. Absorbed energy per unit volume (strain energy density).
Absorbed energy [J kg1]
Loading direction Experiment Simulation
X2 9.66 10.13
X3 9.19 10.24
© 2017 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.pss-b.com

Table 4. Optimization parameters definition.
Parameter Starting value [mm] Min. [mm]
a2–a10 2 1.5
h1–h10 2 Constant value
dh1–dh9 0.5 0.1
d1–d10 0.4 0.2
of impact, the auxetic structure has a much more favorable
stiffening behavior than non-auxetic since the material is
moving toward the impact zone. The optimized auxetic
structures with functionally graded geometry were developed
using the LS-OPT optimization software system.[32]
4.1. Optimization Task
The optimization task was defined using a curve-matching
composite in the LS-OPT software. There are two different curve-
matching composites built in the LS-OPT software: the ordinate-
based curve matching and the curve mapping. While the
ordinate based curve-matching computes only the mean squared
error for the discrepancy between two curves, the curve mapping
composite incorporates the ordinate and the abscissa into the
curve-matching metrics. The curve mapping composite is more
appropriate to find optimum solutions faster for the responses
with non – monotonic and steep regions.[33]
The curve mapping composite in the LS-OPT software
compares the test and the computed curve from the
computational model and minimizes the volume (area)
between the two curves during the optimization procedure.
The test curve can be any arbitrary user defined function or
experimental results. For the computed curve user can choose
any output quantity of the particular numerical model.[34] Many
other applications in engineering can also be optimized with
this feature in the LS-OPT software, for example spring back
effect[35] and material parameters identification.[36]
For the purpose of parametrizing the computational model
for the optimization task, the code in C þ þ was developed. This
code reads designated parameters from the LS-OPT files and
prepares a complete input file for the LS-DYNA simulation based
on these parameters. The optimization parameters of auxetic
Max. [mm] structure built from tetrapods comprise the three geometry
2.5 parameters defined in Figure 1 in each layer of inverted tetrapods
of the auxetic structure and additionally also the struts diameter
in every layer. This results in four optimization parameters in
0.8
every layer of the auxetic structure. However, the parameter h
0.6 (Figure 1) can be changed only simultaneously in all layers to
obtain cuboid shape of the structure and was therefore defined as
constant during the optimization.
4.2. Case Study
The progressive rise of the reaction force on the support plate in
case of impacting the structure with the loading plate in the
direction X3 was chosen as the case study. The boundary
conditions were the same as presented in section 3.2, only the
velocity of the impacting plate was increased to 200 m s1. This
velocity results in the above-critical strain rate, which means that
the main deformation occurs at the deformation front in the
contact area with the impacting loading plate. This is also
the same impacting velocity as planned to be used in future
experimental testing.
Definition of the optimization parameter domains for
optimization was determined based on the visual analysis of
structure geometry and fabrication capabilities (Table 4).
A progressive load-carrying behavior due to densification at
higher strains can always be observed during crushing of the
cellular structures and for that reason the progressive second
order function was chosen as the test target function, defined
with two points in the force-time space: (0 kN, 0 ms) and (20 kN,
0.06 ms).
The results of reaction force on support plate in the
computational model and comparison of optimized response
with the target function after 12 iterations (529 simulations) are
shown in Figure 6. From Figure 6 it can be clearly observed that
the response to the same loading conditions of the functionally
graded auxetic cellular structure is much different from the
non-graded structure and very similar to the target function. The
geometry of functionally graded auxetic structure with optimized

Table 5. The final optimized auxetic structure geometry parameters.

Param. Value [mm] Param. Value [mm] Param. Value [mm]

d1 0.57 dh1 0.64
a2 1.63 d2 0.55 dh2 0.25
a3 1.53 d3 0.53 dh3 0.49
a4 1.63 d4 0.43 dh4 0.37
a5 1.74 d5 0.58 dh5 0.64
a6 2.11 d6 0.23 dh6 0.38
a7 1.99 d7 0.42 dh7 0.49
a8 2.09 d8 0.58 dh8 0.41
a9 1.93 d9 0.32 dh9 0.52
Figure 6. Comparison of reaction force on fixed plate results between
a10 1.63 d10 0.36
computational model of graded, non-graded structure and the target function.

Phys. Status Solidi B 2017, 1600753 1600753 (5 of 7) © 2017 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com
Figure 7. Undeformed geometry of the functionally graded auxetic
structure with progressive response characteristic built from inverted
tetrapods in X2–X3 plane and deformation behavior at 15 and 25%
engineering strain with marked areas with auxetic behavior.
response is based on parameters in Table 5 and shown in
Figure 7.
Maximum strain during compression varied between 75 and
80% for different geometries. The final optimized geometry
(Table 5) was compressed to 76% deformation.
The local auxetic deformation behavior (material flows toward
the impact area) can be clearly observed from Figure 7, even after
optimization and in case of dynamic loading, where the main
deformation occurs in the contact zone between impacting plate
and the structure.
5. Conclusions
The experimental mechanical characterization of the auxetic
structure built from inverted tetrapods was performed for up to
80% of compression strain. Two different deformation
mechanisms were observed in two different loading directions.
The structure deforms controllably with distinct stress-plateau
region and collapses mostly in the plane of maximum shear
stress when loaded in the direction X2. In contrast, a brittle
layer-by-layer collapse was observed in the case of structure
loading in the direction X3. This behavior is attributed to
sudden appearance of local buckling and consequential brittle
failure of vertical struts leading to layer-wise collapse of the
structure. The use of more ductile materials for fabrication of
auxetic structures might trigger the desired auxetic effect where
the structure through ductile plastic deformation converges
toward the impact area.
The computational model was validated through comparison
of computational results with the experimental results, which
showed very good correlation. It was shown that the lattice
computational model of beam finite elements can accurately
describe the deformation behavior of the auxetic struc
ture. Such computational model can be used for further
development of new auxetic geometries and validation at
different strain rates.
Phys. Status Solidi B 2017, 1600753 1600753 (6 of 7)
www.pss-b.com
A new methodology for development of functionally graded
auxetic structures was presented. The method is based on
optimization task in LS-OPT software where the responses of the
computational model and the target function are compared
using the curve-mapping technique. The difference in response
is minimized with shape optimization of the auxetic structure
with functionally graded geometry. The case study of tailoring
the functionally graded geometry of auxetic structure to desired
reaction force function at support plate proves the usefulness of
the proposed method. The method offers a possibility to alter the
geometry of any cellular structure to introduce functionally
graded porosity to achieve user defined response for particular
loading conditions. Future studies are not limited to observation
of reaction forces, but can also consider other parameters, that is
decelerations, velocities of plate/projectile or any other interest-
ing parameter in crashworthiness and ballistic protection.
It is planned that some novel auxetic geometries with
functionally graded internal geometry will be developed using
the presented procedure, fabricated with different base materials
and then tested with various impact and ballistic experiments at
different strain rates.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Slovenian
Research Agency (research core funding No. P2-0063). The paper was also
produced within the framework of the basic research project J2-8186
entitled “Development of multifunctional auxetic cellular structures”,
which is financed by the Slovenian Research Agency “ARRS”.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Keywords
auxetic materials, cellular materials, finite element method, tetrapods
Received: November 2, 2016
Revised: September 17, 2017
Published online:
[1] A. Alderson, Chem. Ind. 1999, 10, 384.
[2] K. E. Evans, M. A. Nkansah, I. J. Hutchinson, S. C. Rogers, Nature
1991, 353, 124.
[3] R. S. Lakes, Science 1987, 235, 1038.
[4] R. F. Almgren, J. Elast. 1985, 15, 427.
[5] K. W. Wojciechowski, Phys. Lett. A 1989, 137, 60.
[6] K. V. Tretiakov, P. M. Pigłowski, K. Hy_zorek, K. W. Wojciechowski,
Smart Mater. Struct. 2016, 25, 54007.
[7] K. W. Wojciechowski, Mol. Phys. Rep. 1995, 10, 129.
[8] M. C. Rechtsman, F. H. Stillinger, S. Torquato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2008, 101, 1.
[9] R. H. Baughman, J. M. Shacklette, A. A. Zakhidov, S. Stafstro, Nature
1998, 392, 362.
[10] H. Kimizuka, H. Kaburaki, Y. Kogure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2000, 84, 5548.
[11] N. Novak, M. Vesenjak, Z. Ren, Strojniski Vestn. - J. Mech. Eng. 2016,
62, 485.
[12] N. Chan, K. E. Evans, J. Cell. Plast. 1998, 34, 231.
© 2017 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com
[13] J. N. Grima, D. Attard, R. Gatt, R. N. Cassar, Adv. Eng. Mater. 2009,
11, 533.
[14] Y. Hou, R. Neville, F. Scarpa, C. Remillat, B. Gu, M. Ruzzene,
Composites B, Eng. 2014, 59, 33.
[15] J. Schwerdtfeger, P. Heinl, R. F. Singer, C. Körner, Phys. Status Solidi B
2010, 247, 269.
[16] J. Schwerdtfeger, F. Wein, G. Leugering, R. F. Singer, C. Körner,
M. Stingl, F. Schury, Adv. Mater. 2011, 23, 2650.
[17] A. A. Javadi, A. Faramarzi, R. Farmani, Eng. Comput. 2012, 29, 260.
[18] R. Kureta, Y. Kanno, Optim. Eng. 2014, 15, 773.
[19] T. Strek, H. Jopek, B. T. Maruszewski, M. Nienartowicz, Phys. Status
Solidi B 2014, 251, 354.
[20] G. Wei, J. Chem. Phys. 1992, 96, 3226.
[21] J. Schwerdtfeger, F. Schury, M. Stingl, F. Wein, R. F. Singer, C. Körner,
Phys. Status Solidi B 2012, 249, 1347.
[22] T. C. Lim, J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 2002, 21, 1899.
[23] L. Boldrin, S. Hummel, F. Scarpa, D. Di Maio, C. Lira, M. Ruzzene,
C. D. L. Remillat, T. C. Lim, R. Rajasekaran, S. Patsias, Composites
Struct. 2016, 149, 114.
[24] C. Lira, F. Scarpa, R. Rajasekaran, J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 2011, 22, 907.
[25] A. Alderson, K. L. Alderson, S. A. McDonald, B. Mottershead, S. Nazare,
P. J. Withers, Y. T. Yao, Macromol. Mater. Eng. 2013, 298, 318.
[26] Y. Hou, Y. H. Tai, C. Lira, F. Scarpa, J. R. Yates, B. Gu, Composites A,
Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2013, 49, 119.
Phys. Status Solidi B 2017, 1600753 1600753 (7 of 7)
www.pss-b.com
[27] Z. Ma, A. Arbor, G. M. Hulbert, NDIA Gr. Veh. Syst. Eng. Technol.
Symp., Dearborn, Michigan, USA 2010.
[28] A. Ajdari, H. Nayeb-Hashemi, A. Vaziri, Int. J. Solids Struct. 2011,
48, 506.
[29] W. Van Grunsven, E. Hernandez-Nava, G. C. Reilly, R. Goodall,
Metals (Basel) 2014, 4, 401.
[30] Standard ISO 13314:2011: Mechanical testing of metals – ductility
testing – compression test for porous and cellular metals.
[31] J. Hallquist, LS-DYNA1 - Keyword User’s Manual. Livermore Software
Technology Corp. (LSTC), California, USA 2007.
[32] N. Stander, W. Roux, A. Basudhar, T. Eggleston, T. Goel, K. Craig, LS-
OPT1 User’s Manual 5.2. Livermore Software Technology Corp.
(LSTC), California, USA 2015.
[33] K. Witowski, M. Feucht, N. Stander, 2012. [Online]. Available at:
https://www.dynamore.de/de/download/presentation/dokumente/
LS-OPT-info2012/new-developments-on-identification-of-material-
and-system-parameters-with-ls-opt.
[34] K. Witowski, M. Feucht, N. Stander, in: 8th European LS-DYNA1
Users Conference, Strasbourg, France 2011.
[35] H. Ul, Hassan, H. Traphöner, A. Güner, A. E. Tekkaya, Int. J. Mech.
Sci. 2016, 110, 229.
[36] D. Hörling, Parameter identification of GISSMO damage model for
DOCOL 1200M. Thesis, Karlstads Universitet, Karlstad, Sweden
2015.
© 2017 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim