Composite Structures 326 (2023) 117611

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Impact of parametric variation to achieve extreme mechanical metamaterials

through topology optimization
Shubham Saurabh, Abhinav Gupta, Rajib Chowdhury ∗
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Metamaterials are manufactured structures having extreme properties which do not exist in nature. Topology
Topology optimization optimization (TO) provides an excellent alternative to the intuition-based homogenization approach used in
Metamaterials commercial packages for automating the design of metamaterials. However, multiple topological parameters
Bulk modulus
must be decided to get the tailored effective properties. This research aims to study the optimum parameters to
Incompressibility
be used in TO for developing incompressible material. To achieve this, we design microstructures to maximize
Mechanical properties
the bulk modulus. A number of parametric studies are performed by varying topological control parameters
such as volume fraction, penalization power, filter radius, mesh size and initial design. In addition to this,
the combinations of these parameters are also investigated. These studies will be helpful for the design of
incompressible metamaterials. The bulk modulus for topologically optimized designs approaches the Hashin–
Shtrikman upper bound (HSUB). The results show that appropriate parameter selection can significantly
improve the microstructure’s incompressibility. Such materials can have potential applications in designing
aerospace and energy-absorbing components.

1. Introduction non-gradient approaches. Density-based approaches include methods

Metamaterials are manufactured structures having extreme prop-
erties that do not exist in nature [1]. The unique behavior of such
materials is caused by the periodic arrangement of their microstructures
instead of their chemical composition [2]. Recent advancements in
metamaterials have led to the design of various forms of mechan-
ical metamaterials, such as those with negative Poisson’s ratio [3–
11], negative refractive index [12] and unique thermal expansion
properties [13]. Additionally, metamaterials have been developed for
vibration control [14–17], acoustic [18–20], and pentamode metama-
terials [21]. Conventionally, most of the design of the metamaterial
was intuition-based. Topology optimization (TO) provides an excellent
alternative to the conventional design.
TO seeks to find the best material layout under the given bound-
ary conditions by optimizing the objective function under specific
design constraints. TO has been extensively used since its introduction
by Bendsøe and Kikuchi [22]. TO has gained significant popular-
ity recently because of its applications in aerospace [23,24], fluid–
structure interaction problems [25,26], and multiscale nonlinear struc-
tures [27,28]. It has also been applied to metamaterial microstructure
designs [29–34].
Various approaches in TO are broadly categorized into density-
based and heuristic/intuitive, continuous and discrete and gradient and
such as the homogenization method [22,35], solid isotropic material
with penalization (SIMP) [35–40] and rational approximation of ma-
terial properties (RAMP) [41,42]. Heuristic approaches include Soft
Kill method [43], evolutionary structural optimization (ESO) [44,45],
bidirectional evolutionary structural optimization (BESO) [46,47], and
several others. Continuous approaches in TO are SIMP method [35–
38], level set-based method [48–50] and others. Discrete approaches
in TO include Evolutionary structural optimization (ESO) [44,45], Bidi-
rectional Evolutionary Structural Optimization (BESO) [46,47], and
several others. Gradient-based TO methods utilize gradients of the
objective function with respect to the design variables. They often rely
on mathematical optimization techniques like the method of moving
asymptotes (MMA) [51] or the optimality criteria (OC) method [52].
These methods include homogenization method [22,35], level set-
based method [48–50], and SIMP method [35–38]. Non-Gradient based
TO methods utilize nature-inspired algorithms like genetic algorithm
(GA) [53], particle swarm optimization (PSO) [54] and others.
For the first time, Sigmund [55] proposed TO for designing the
microstructure. Afterward, various TO methods were employed, includ-
ing density-based approach [56,57], level set method [58], parametric
level set method [59], and BESO [60], among others. The level set

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rajib.chowdhury@ce.iitr.ac.in (R. Chowdhury).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.117611
Received 15 March 2023; Received in revised form 31 July 2023; Accepted 6 October 2023
Available online 13 October 2023
0263-8223/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Saurabh et al.
Nomenclature
Linear Elasticity
𝜺𝑖𝑗 Strain in the base material
𝝈 𝑖𝑗 Stress in the base material
𝒖1 Displacement fields computed with DBC1
𝒖2 Displacement fields computed with DBC2
𝝈 𝑖𝑗 Stress in the homogenized metamaterial
𝜺𝑖𝑗 Strain in the homogenized metamaterial
𝑪 Homogenized elasticity matrix
𝑪 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙 Homogenized elasticity tensor in matrix
notation
𝑪 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙 Elasticity tensor of the base material in
matrix notation
𝜅 Homogenized bulk modulus
𝜅 𝑢𝑝 Hashin–Shtrikman upper bound (HSUB)
𝐻𝑆
𝜈 Homogenized Poisson’s ratio
Topology optimization
𝜙𝑒 Design variable of 𝑒th element
𝐵𝑒 Term obtained from the optimality condi-
tion
𝑝 Penalization power
𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 Filter radius
𝑓 Volume fraction
𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑥 × 𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑦 Mesh size
𝐸min Elastic modulus of the Ersatz material
method is well-suited for handling topological changes during the
optimization process. In contrast, the SIMP technique is the most
popular approach because of its straightforward conceptualization and
application [59].
Two methods are commonly utilized to express the effective prop-
erties of a unit cell: the homogenization method [61] and the strain
energy-based method [62]. The homogenization method, which em-
ploys a two-scale asymptotic expansion, can be used to characterize
the effective properties of a microstructure, but it can be difficult to
implement. In contrast, the strain energy-based approach predicts the
homogenized characteristics with similar ease and simplicity [62].
It should be noted that the performance of metamaterials is very
sensitive to the topological parameters [4]. These parameters affect
not only the shapes but also the desired properties. With a change
in parameters, the convergence rate changes, causing much change
in the computational cost. Existing research is primarily based on
the developing microstructures for different objective functions like
negative Poisson’s ratios, elastic modulus, shear modulus and bulk
modulus. Also, many studies focus on material uncertainty. In contrast,
none of the studies focuses explicitly on the influence of such topo-
logical parameters on the geometrical configurations and properties of
metamaterials. Taking advantage of these parameters can significantly
improve the mechanical performance of metamaterials.
This paper presents a comprehensive study of topological parame-
ters for generating extreme properties and multiple distinct geometrical
shapes to maximize the bulk modulus. The microstructures are assumed
to comprise periodic base cells (PBCs). The mechanical characteristics
of structures at the microscale are related to the material’s macroscale
characteristics using the homogenization theory. Using optimality crite-
ria, the density variables are updated in TO. The results obtained from
the paper are validated with existing literature. The bulk modulus at
the various volume fractions is compared with the Hashin–Shtrikman
upper bound (HSUB). Several investigations are performed to examine
2
Composite Structures 326 (2023) 117611
the impact of topological parameters on the designs and properties of
the unit cell. The representation of the entire study is shown in Fig. 1.
Results of the parametric investigations demonstrate that the proper-
ties of microstructure are enhanced significantly and can reach up to
the theoretical maximum i.e. HSUB, by optimizing control parameters
like volume fraction, penalization power, filter radius, mesh size and
initial design. These studies can also provide valuable insights into the
behavior of the optimization process.
The rest of this paper is outlined as follows: We briefly explain the
elasticity formulations for metamaterials with strain energy-based ho-
mogenization method and the implementation of boundary conditions
in Section 2. Calculations of bulk modulus in terms of the homogenized
elasticity matrix and HSUB are also discussed in this section. Section 3
represents the optimization model for maximization of bulk modulus,
modified SIMP method, optimality criteria method and sensitivity filter.
Extensive numerical investigations are presented in Section 4. The
results show the variation of optimized geometries and properties with
varying topological control parameters, along with validation of the
benchmark problem and a case study. At last, in Section 5, we outline
the findings of the entire study.
2. Elasticity formulation for metamaterials
The elasticity formulation for metamaterials involves developing
mathematical models that describe the mechanical response of meta-
materials under applied loads (see Fig. 2). Bulk modulus is an essential
mechanical property that characterizes the resistance of a material to
changes in volume under the application of external pressure. Addi-
tionally, Hashin–Shtrikman (HS) bounds provide valuable insights into
the upper limits of the bulk modulus that a material can attain. By
employing the concept of effective medium, homogenization theory
enables the determination of macroscopic material properties based on
the properties of its constituent phases.
2.1. Bulk modulus
Bulk modulus (𝜅) is an essential mechanical property that charac-
terizes the resistance of a material to changes in volume under the
application of external pressure. The materials with a higher bulk
modulus are typically more rigid and less compressible than those
with a lower one. In this work, the 𝜅 pertains to the correlation
between the hydrostatic pressure in a two-dimensional context and the
corresponding change in the area and the two-dimensional elements of
the constitutive tensor are employed [63].
𝑝
𝜅= ℎ (1)
𝜀𝑣
𝜎 +𝜎
where the hydrostatic pressure is defined as 𝑝ℎ = 𝑥𝑥 2 𝑦𝑦 and volumetric
strain is the sum of normal strains in 𝑥 and 𝑦 directions, further defined
𝜎 +𝜎
in terms of uniaxial stresses(𝜎𝑥𝑥 , 𝜎𝑦𝑦 ) as 𝜀𝑣 = 𝑥𝑥𝐸 𝑦𝑦 (1 − 𝜈). Thus, 𝜅 can
be written in form of 𝐸 and 𝜈 as:
𝐸
𝜅= (2)
2(1 − 𝜈)
2.2. Homogenization
Metamaterials designed for maximizing the bulk modulus are ar-
tificially engineered materials with a tailored internal structure that
exhibits extremely high stiffness and resistance to compression forces,
making them ideal for applications requiring exceptional resistance
to volume changes under external pressure. Homogenization theory
and the strain energy principle provide a framework for analyzing
and designing materials with the desired bulk modulus. In the 1970s,
the homogenization theory emerged as an alternate way to laboratory
investigation for determining effective material characteristics [64].
The energy-based homogenization approach is used in this study to
S. Saurabh et al. Composite Structures 326 (2023) 117611

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of entire work. Volume fraction, penalization power, filter radius, mesh size and initial design are varied to perform parametric investigations.
Taking advantage of these control parameters, the homogenized bulk modulus of TO designs can achieve very close to the Hashin–Shtrikman upper bound (HSUB).

estimate the macroscopic equivalent elastic characteristics of metama- From Eqs. (7), (9) and (10), we get:
terials [65].
Considering a unit cell 𝛺 ⊂ R2 having boundary 𝛤 , with 𝛤𝐿 , 𝛤𝑅 , ⎡ 𝜀 ⎤
𝑇 ⎡ 𝐶 𝐶 1122 0 ⎤⎡ 𝜀 ⎤
1 ⎢ 11 ⎥ ⎢ 1111 ⎥ ⎢ 11 ⎥= 1
𝛤𝑇 , and 𝛤𝐵 representing the left, right, top and bottom boundaries 𝑉 𝜀22 ⎢ 𝐶 2211 𝐶 2222 0 ⎥ ⎢ 𝜀22 𝑪 𝜺 𝜺 d𝛺
2 ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎣ 𝜀12 ⎥ 2 ∫𝛺 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙 𝑖𝑗 𝑘𝑙
respectively. Let 𝝈 𝑖𝑗 and 𝜺𝑘𝑙 denote the stress and strain, respectively, ⎣ 𝜀12 ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 𝐶 1212 ⎦ ⎦
within the unit cell, and let 𝝈 𝑖𝑗 and 𝜺𝑘𝑙 denote the stress and strain,
respectively, within the homogenized metamaterial. The effective elas- (11)
ticity matrix represents the behavior of the metamaterial, directly
dependent on the unit cell’s architecture and the base material’s elastic 2.3. Boundary conditions
properties. The elasticity matrix of the base material is denoted by
𝑪 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙 while 𝑪 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙 represents the elasticity matrix of the metamate-
rial. The constitutive relation of base material and the homogenized The coefficients of the homogenized elastic tensor (𝐶 1111 , 𝐶 1122 , and
metamaterial is: 𝐶 2222 ) can be determined using Eq. (11), with the application of the
following uniform strain fields:
𝝈 𝑖𝑗 = 𝑪 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙 𝜺𝑘𝑙 (3)
⎧ 1 ⎫ ⎧ 0 ⎫
1 ⎪ ⎪ 2 ⎪ ⎪
𝝈 𝑖𝑗 = 𝑪 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙 𝜺𝑘𝑙 (4) 𝜺 = ⎨ 0 ⎬, 𝜺 =⎨ 1 ⎬ (12)
⎪ 0 ⎪ ⎪ 0 ⎪
⎩ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭
For the 2D orthotropic material, we can write 𝑪 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙 as:
To simulate these strain fields, we apply unit displacement in the
⎡ 𝐶 𝐶 1122 0 ⎤ ⎡ 1 𝜈 0 ⎤
⎢ 1111 ⎥ 𝐸 ⎢ ⎥ direction of the applied unit component of the strain field and restrain
𝑪 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙 = ⎢ 𝐶 2211 𝐶 2222 0 ⎥= ⎢ 𝜈 1 0 ⎥ (5) it from the other three directions to restrict Poisson’s effect. Fig. 3
2
⎢ 0 0 𝐶 1212 ⎥ 1−𝜈 ⎢ 0 0 (1−𝜈) ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ 2 ⎦ shows the displacement applied in the form of two separate cases of
Dirichlet boundary conditions (DBCs) as, DBC1 = [𝑢𝑥 = 0 on 𝛤𝐿 , 𝑢𝑦 =
where 𝐸, 𝜈 are the homogenized Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio
0 on 𝛤𝑇 , 𝑢𝑦 = 0 on 𝛤𝐵 , 𝑢𝑥 = 1 on 𝛤𝑅 ] and DBC2 = [𝑢𝑥 = 0 on 𝛤𝐿 , 𝑢𝑦 =
of unit cell, respectively. Based on Eqs. (2) and (5), we can write:
1 on 𝛤𝑇 , 𝑢𝑦 = 0 on 𝛤𝐵 , 𝑢𝑥 = 0 on 𝛤𝑅 ]. The displacement fields computed
1 as the solution of the linear elastic problem subjected to Dirichlet
(𝐶 + 𝐶 1122 + 𝐶 2211 + 𝐶 2222 ) = 𝜅 (6)
4 1111 boundary conditions, DBC1 and DBC2 are represented by 𝒖1 and 𝒖2 ,
Therefore, for 2D materials, the bulk modulus can be mathemati- respectively. Considering 𝑞 and 𝑟 to be indices corresponding to the
cally expressed using the homogenized elasticity matrix (𝑪). DBCs, we can write Eq. (11) as:
From Eqs. (4) and (5), we get:
1 𝑞 𝑟 1
𝑉𝜺 𝑪 𝜺 = 𝑪 𝜺 (𝒖𝑞 )𝜺𝑘𝑙 (𝒖𝑟 )d𝛺 (13)
⎡ 𝜎 11 ⎤ ⎡ 𝐶 1111 𝐶 1122 0 ⎤⎡ 𝜀 ⎤ 2 𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙 𝑘𝑙 2 ∫𝛺 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙 𝑖𝑗
⎢ 𝜎 ⎥ = ⎢⎢ 𝐶 𝐶 2222 0
⎥ ⎢ 11
⎥ ⎢ 𝜀22 ⎥ (7)
⎢ 22 ⎥ ⎢ 2211 ⎥ ⎣ 𝜀12 ⎥ To evaluate 𝐶 1111 , we consider homogenized strain and displace-
⎣ 𝜎 12 ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 𝐶 1212 ⎦ ⎦ 1
ment solution corresponding to the DBC1 as given by 𝜺 and 𝒖1 respec-
Let 𝑉 ∶= ∫𝛺 d𝛺 denote the volume of the unit cell. The overall strain tively.
energy of the unit cell, taking the parameters of the base material into
⎡ 1 ⎤ ⎡ 𝐶 1111 𝐶 1122 ⎤⎡ 1 ⎤
⊤
account, is given by: 0
1 ⎢ ⎢ ⎥⎢
𝑉 0 ⎥ ⎢ 𝐶 2211 𝐶 2222 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥⎥
1 1 2 ⎢ ⎥
𝑈= 𝝈 𝜺 d𝛺 = 𝑪 𝜺 𝜺 d𝛺 (8) ⎣ 0 ⎦ ⎢⎣ 0 0 𝐶 1212 ⎥⎣ 0 ⎦
⎦ (14)
2 ∫𝛺 𝑖𝑗 𝑘𝑙 2 ∫𝛺 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙 𝑖𝑗 𝑘𝑙
The overall strain energy, when homogenized properties of the 1
= 𝑪 𝜺 (𝒖1 )𝜺𝑘𝑙 (𝒖1 )d𝛺
periodic unit cell are taken into account, is given as: 2 ∫𝛺 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙 𝑖𝑗
1 1 1
𝑈= 𝑉 𝝈 𝑖𝑗 𝜺𝑘𝑙 = 𝑉 𝜺𝑖𝑗 𝑪 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙 𝜺𝑘𝑙 (9) 𝐶 1111 = 𝑪 𝜺 (𝒖1 )𝜺𝑘𝑙 (𝒖1 )d𝛺 (15)
2 2 𝑉 ∫𝛺 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙 𝑖𝑗
According to the strain–energy based method [62], for elastic prob- Similarly, we can calculate 𝐶 2222 by considering homogenized strain
lems, the total strain energy of the unit cell (𝑈 ) is equal to the total and displacement solution corresponding to the DBC2 as given by 𝜺
2
strain energy of the unit cell considering it as a homogeneous medium 2
and 𝒖 respectively.
(𝑈 ), i.e.
1
𝑈 =𝑈 (10) 𝐶 2222 = 𝑪 𝜺 (𝒖2 )𝜺𝑘𝑙 (𝒖2 )d𝛺 (16)
𝑉 ∫𝛺 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙 𝑖𝑗

3
S. Saurabh et al. Composite Structures 326 (2023) 117611

Fig. 2. Illustration of a macro-structure constituted by periodically arranged microstructures.

1
Fig. 3. Dirichlet boundary conditions (DBC’s): (a) DBC1∶ [𝑢𝑥 = 0 on 𝛤𝐿 , 𝑢𝑦 = 0 on 𝛤𝑇 , 𝑢𝑦 = 0 on 𝛤𝐵 , 𝑢𝑥 = 1 on 𝛤𝑅 ]. Representation of strain field (𝜺 ) is shown above. (b)
2
DBC2∶ [𝑢𝑥 = 0 on 𝛤𝐿 , 𝑢𝑦 = 1 on 𝛤𝑇 , 𝑢𝑦 = 0 on 𝛤𝐵 , 𝑢𝑥 = 0 on 𝛤𝑅 ]. Representation of strain field (𝜺 ) is shown above. These strain fields can be imposed by applying corresponding
DBCs.

To evaluate 𝐶 1122 , we consider homogenized strain and displace- 2.4. Hashin–Shtrikman bounds
1 2
ment solution 𝜺 , 𝒖1 for DBC1 and 𝜺 , 𝒖2 for DBC2 respectively.
The Hashin–Shtrikman (HS) bounds refer to a series of inequali-
⊤ ⎡ 𝐶 ⎤⎡ 0 ⎤ ties that establish both a lower and an upper limit on the effective
⎡ 1 ⎤ 𝐶 1122 0
1 ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 1111 ⎥⎢ properties of composite materials. The effective properties of composite
𝑉
2 ⎢
0
⎥ ⎢ 𝐶 2211 𝐶 2222 0 ⎥ ⎢ 1 ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎥⎣ 0 ⎦ materials are the macroscopic properties determined by taking an
⎣ 0 ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 𝐶 1212 ⎦ (17)
average of the properties of the individual constituent phases. The HS
1 bounds are established by assuming the composite material, specifically
= 𝑪 𝜺 (𝒖1 )𝜺𝑘𝑙 (𝒖2 )d𝛺
2 ∫𝛺 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙 𝑖𝑗 that it consists of either a homogeneous mixture of the constituent
phases or a perfect interface between the phases.
According to Neves et al. [66], it was found that the optimized
1
𝐶 1122 = 𝑪 𝜺 (𝒖1 )𝜺𝑘𝑙 (𝒖2 )d𝛺 (18) orthotropic materials have maximum bulk moduli that are very close to
𝑉 ∫𝛺 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙 𝑖𝑗
the Hashin–Shtrikman upper bound (HSUB) for homogenized materials.
The HSUB was initially developed for quasi-homogeneous and quasi-
From Eqs. (6), (15), (16) and (18), we can compute 𝜅. isotropic composites, as described by Hashin and Shtrikman [67]. It is

4
S. Saurabh et al. Composite Structures 326 (2023) 117611

used to optimize the design of composite materials for specific perfor- 3.1. Sensitivity analysis and mesh independency filter
mance criteria. In practice, the bulk modulus of optimized materials is
often compared to this bound. For a 2D microstructure consisting of a The sensitivity analysis is performed by taking the derivative of
single solid constituent phase, the HSUB (𝜅 𝑢𝑝 ) for the bulk modulus the objective function Eq. (21) with respect to the design variables, as
𝐻𝑆
described by:
can be mathematically expressed as [67]:
𝜕𝑓 ( )
𝑓 𝜅𝐺 = −𝑝𝜙𝑝−1
𝑒 𝐸0 − 𝐸min 𝜅̄ (24)
𝜅 𝑢𝑝 = (19) 𝜕𝜙𝑒
𝐻𝑆 (1 − 𝑓 )𝜅 + 𝐺
Numerical instabilities, such as mesh dependency and checker-
where 𝜅 and 𝐺 are the bulk and shear moduli of the base material and boarding, are common issues that arise during TO design. To avoid this
𝐸
calculated by 2(1−𝜈) 𝐸
and 2(1+𝜈) , respectively. 𝑓 is the volume fraction behavior, a large number of methods have been suggested, including
of the solid phase in the homogenized material. mesh independency filters constituting sensitivity filters and density
filters [69,70]. We have used the sensitivity filter of Sigmund [68] in
our research that averages the sensitivity over a region in the vicinity
𝜕𝑓
3. Optimization approach of the current element (see Fig. 4). The sensitivities 𝜕𝜙 are modified
𝑒
through sensitivity-based filtering as:

The homogenized material properties of metamaterials are depen- ̂

𝜕𝑓 1 ∑𝑁
𝜕𝑓
= ∑ 𝑊 𝑏 𝜙𝑖 (25)
dent on the architecture of the unit cell. A suitable architecture of 𝜕𝜙𝑎 𝜙𝑎 𝑁𝑏=1 𝑊 𝑏 𝑏=1
𝜕𝜙𝑖
the unit cell for maximization of bulk modulus could be generated The convolution operator (weight factor), 𝑊𝑏 is defined as:
by formulating a TO problem combined with the homogenization pro- { )}
cess and considering the base material properties to be constant. TO 𝑊𝑏 = 𝑟min − dist(𝑏, 𝑎), 𝑏 ∈ N ∣ dist(𝑏, 𝑎) ≤ 𝑟min , 𝑏 = 1, … , 𝑁 (26)
aims to find the optimal material distribution, often represented as Here, ′ 𝑎′
and ′ 𝑏′
indicate two different elements and dist (𝑏, 𝑎) is
a density field 𝜙 ∈ R2 , inside a design domain based on specified the distance between their midpoints. The convolution operator 𝑊𝑏
design objectives and constraints. In the density-based method (DBM), exhibits linear decay as the distance from element ′ 𝑎′ increases. The
a discontinuous density field is defined over the finite element mesh, weight factor outside the circle with filter radius (𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 ) is zero.
where each element is assigned a density value ranging between 0 and
3.2. Optimality criteria method
1. These density values represent the proportion of material present in
the corresponding region of the mesh. The optimization problem for To solve the optimization problem outlined in Eq. (20), we apply
TO of micro-structures could be stated as [65]: the standard optimality criteria (OC) method. Following the updating
minimize 𝑓 (𝜙) scheme based on the gradient of the Lagrangian of the problem pre-
𝜙 sented by Bendsoe [52], the design variables can be updated as follows:
∫ 𝜙d𝛺
subjected to 𝑔(𝜙) ∶ −1≤0 (20) ( ) ( )
𝑓 ∫ 1d𝛺 ⎧max 0, 𝜙𝑒 − 𝑚 , if 𝜙𝑒 𝐵𝑒𝜂 ≤ max 0, 𝜙𝑒 − 𝑚 ,
⎪ ( ) ( )
0 ≤ 𝜙𝑒 ≤ 1, 𝑒 = 1, … , 𝑁. 𝜙new
𝑒 = ⎨min 0, 𝜙𝑒 + 𝑚 , if 𝜙𝑒 𝐵𝑒𝜂 ≥ min 0, 𝜙𝑒 + 𝑚 , (27)
⎪ 𝜂
In the above equation, 𝑓 is the required material volume fraction ⎩𝜙𝑒 𝐵𝑒 , otherwise
and 𝜂(𝜙) is the SIMP penalization function. The SIMP penalization where 𝑚 is the step size, 𝜂 is the damping coefficient and 𝐵𝑒 can be
function uses a power law to define a relationship between this density calculated as:
variable and material properties by penalizing the existence of material ̂
𝜕𝑓
− 𝜕𝜙
𝑒
in an element to either 1 or 0. The main objective of this study is to 𝐵𝑒 = (28)
𝜕𝑉
identify the most optimal incompressible design for a given material 𝜆 𝜕𝜙
𝑒
distribution, which is achieved by solving the maximizing the bulk where, the Lagrange multiplier 𝜆 is determined using the bisection
modulus problem, where the objective function 𝑓 (𝜙) is given by: algorithm.

𝑓 (𝜙) = −𝜂(𝜙)𝜅̄ (21) 3.3. Algorithm implementation

where 𝜅̄ is the homogenized bulk modulus which is calculated from
Eq. (6) based on homogenization theory as discussed in Section 2. As
per the modified SIMP approach, the SIMP penalization function 𝜂(𝜙𝑒 )
can be defined as [68]:
( )
𝜂(𝜙) = 𝐸min + (𝜙)𝑝 𝐸0 − 𝐸min , 𝜙 ∈ [0, 1] (22)
In Eq. (22), 𝑝 is the penalization parameter, Young’s modulus of solid
material is represented by 𝐸0 , while Young’s modulus of the Ersatz
material is represented by 𝐸min , which is set as 1𝑒 − 9 times 𝐸0 . The
function 𝜙 is a piece-wise discontinuous function with a constant value
over a single element and is discontinuous at the element boundary.
Thus, we consider the function 𝜙 to belong to the space made of
discontinuous piecewise Lagrange polynomials, namely
{ }
𝐷 = 𝜙 ∈ 𝐿2 (𝛺) ∶ 𝜙|𝑇 ∈ 𝐿 (𝑇 )∀𝑇 ∈  and  = 0 (23)
In Eq. (23),  is the set of all cells 𝑇 of FE mesh, and 𝐿 (𝑇 ) is a function
space of discontinuous Lagrange element of degree . Since we need a
piecewise constant function, we choose  = 0.
The algorithm for parametric investigations has been presented in
Algorithm 1. We define the metamaterial’s design space and material
properties and initialize the density variable. Topological control pa-
rameters like volume fraction, penalization parameter, filter radius,
mesh size, and initial design are specified next. We proceed by varying
one parameter at a time while keeping the others constant. The next
step is to set the maximum number of iterations and initialize a loop
variable. For each value of the loop variable, we solve the elasticity
problem corresponding to boundary conditions (DBC1 and DBC2) for
bilinear and linear forms as defined above. We then enter two nested
loops. Within these loops, we calculate the term 𝐶 𝑞𝑞𝑟𝑟 using integration
over the domain, involving the strain and displacement fields. This
calculation is performed for four combinations of 𝐷𝐵𝐶1 and 𝐷𝐵𝐶2
conditions.
After the nested loops, we compute homogenized elasticity coeffi-
cients, objective function and sensitivity. After applying the sensitivity
filter, we solve the optimization problem using OC and check if the
stopping criteria have been satisfied. If the criteria are met, we termi-
nate the algorithm; otherwise, continue to the next iteration. This way,
we perform numerical investigations described in Section 4.

5
S. Saurabh et al. Composite Structures 326 (2023) 117611

3.4.1. Volume fraction

The volume fraction quantifies the extent to which the material
occupies the design space in the optimized configuration. Controlling
the volume fraction is essential for regulating material utilization and
ensuring that the resulting structure meets the desired mechanical
properties. Depending on the specific approach, the volume fraction is
commonly employed as a design constraint or a design variable within
the optimization problem formulation.
When used as a design constraint, the volume fraction defines
the upper limit on the allowable proportion of material incorporated
into the design. By imposing this constraint, the optimization pro-
cess guarantees the physical feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the
optimized design. Alternatively, when employed as a design variable,
the volume fraction can dynamically vary within predefined bounds
during optimization, granting greater flexibility in shaping the resulting
design.
Determining the appropriate volume fraction hinges upon the meta-
material’s unique requirements and intended application. Opting for
a lower volume fraction is preferable in scenarios where minimiz-
ing material usage and reducing manufacturing costs are paramount.
However, it is worth noting that a lower volume fraction may yield
a design with reduced stiffness. Conversely, applications prioritizing
structural performance require a higher volume fraction to ensure
Fig. 4. Cone filter. The cone filter operates by weighted averaging the parameter values
of neighboring elements or cells within a specified radius. (top)Elements (𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑏 ) in the
enhanced strength and durability. Nonetheless, such a choice may lead
neighborhood of 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑎 are considered for the density filtering. (bottom) Variation of the to a heavier and more expensive design. Consequently, selecting the
weight factor (𝑊𝑏 ) with increasing distance from 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑎 . Note that the weight factor is optimal volume fraction demands careful consideration to balance the
zero outside the filter zone marked by 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 . competing demands of cost, weight, and structural performance specific
to the application.
Define the design space and material properties of the
metamaterial 3.4.2. Penalization power
Initialize the density variable (𝜙𝑒 ) The penalization power parameter plays a crucial role in shaping
Define topological-control-parameters: (i) 𝑓 , (ii) 𝑝, (iii) 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 , (iv) the resulting TO design. It determines the level of penalization applied
𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑥 × 𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑦 and (v) initial design. to intermediate density values within the design domain, influencing
Define bilinear form (a) and linear form (L) of the elastic system. the removal of material from the structure.
Vary one parameter at a time and set all other parameters The penalization power governs the extent of smoothing in the
constant. optimized topology. Higher values lead to smoother and more regular
for parameter in topological-control-parameters do designs, while lower values allow for more intricate and irregular
Define maxIter, set 𝑖 = 0 configurations. By employing a power function with the penalization
for 𝑖 = 0 to maxIter do power as the exponent, intermediate density values between 0 and 1 are
𝒖1 ← 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒(a = L, 𝐷𝐵𝐶1) penalized accordingly. Increasing the penalization exponent intensifies
𝒖2 ← 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒(a = L, 𝐷𝐵𝐶2) the penalty on intermediate density values, encouraging the design
for 𝑞 = 1 to 2 do densities to approach either 0 or 1. In contrast, setting the exponent to
for 𝑟 = 1 to 2 do 1 (no penalization) results in a diffuse design lacking clear boundaries
1 between solid and void regions.
𝐶 𝑞𝑞𝑟𝑟 = 𝑪 𝜺 (𝒖𝑞 )𝜺𝑘𝑙 (𝒖𝑟 )d𝛺
𝑉 ∫𝛺 𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙 𝑖𝑗 The choice of penalization power depends on the specific appli-
end cation and design requirements. A higher penalization power is of-
ten preferred for applications where structural regularity and smooth-
end
ness are paramount, such as aerospace or automotive design. On the
Compute the objective function from Eq. (21) and
other hand, if complex and irregular shapes are desired, as in artistic
sensitivity from Eq. (24)
or architectural design, a lower penalization power may be more
Apply sensitivity filter using Eq. (25).
appropriate.
Solve the optimization problem using OC with Eq. (27)
if stopping criteria is achieved then
exit 3.4.3. Filter radius
end The filter radius plays a crucial role in controlling the smoothness
end of the optimized structure. It determines the thickness of the members
in the topologically optimized design. Increasing the filter radius makes
end
the design thicker and exhibits fewer characteristics. Additionally, the
Algorithm 1: Parametric investigations
filter radius also governs the minimum size of the developing members
within the unit cell.
The filtering technique employed here serves to regularize the
3.4. Parametric studies optimization problem. Consequently, a smaller value for filter radius
enhances the solution since the lowpass filter allows for higher fre-
The main aim of this paper is to study the influence of control quency characteristics. On the other hand, a larger filter radius applies
parameters on the properties and topologies of the unit cell. The control more smoothing to the density distribution, resulting in a coarser
parameters are volume fraction, penalization power, filter radius, mesh and more regular design. Conversely, a smaller filter radius preserves
size and initial design. smaller features, yielding a finer and more irregular design.

6
S. Saurabh et al.
The selection of the appropriate filter radius depends on the specific
application and design requirements. A larger filter radius may be
preferred in applications where structural regularity and smoothness
are of paramount importance, such as aerospace or automotive design.
Conversely, a smaller filter radius may be more suitable for applications
requiring fine details and irregular shapes, such as artistic or architec-
tural design. It is vital to exercise caution and choose the filter radius
judiciously to ensure that the resulting design is both manufacturable
and capable of meeting the required performance specifications.
3.4.4. Mesh size
The design domain’s discretization is essential for the finite element
(FE) analysis utilized in TO. The design domain is divided into smaller
elements to form a mesh, and the size of this mesh can be adjusted by
varying the number of elements in the 𝑥 and 𝑦 directions. To compute
the mesh size, the length of the unit cell is divided by the number of
elements.
The choice of mesh size depends on the specific application and
design requirements. A smaller mesh size is preferred when fine details
and precise design representation are crucial, especially in microscale
or nanoscale devices. However, it is important to note that a smaller
mesh size comes with an increased computational cost and longer
optimization time.
On the other hand, for applications where the overall shape and
structural features of the design are more significant than intricate
details, such as in large-scale engineering structures, a larger mesh
size may be more appropriate. Nonetheless, a larger mesh size may
result in a less accurate design representation and potentially overlook
important structural features.
Selecting the appropriate mesh size requires careful consideration
to strike a balance between the accuracy, computational cost and time
required for optimization. Additionally, it is important to refine the
mesh in areas when significant structural features are expected in the
optimized design.
3.4.5. Initial design
In metamaterial TO, the initial design refers to the starting point
of the optimization process. The initial design can significantly impact
the resulting optimized design, as it influences the search space and the
convergence of the optimization algorithm. The initial design can take
various forms depending on the application and design requirements.
In some cases, a simple geometry such as a circle or a rectangle may be
used as the initial design. In other cases, a more complex geometry may
be used as the initial design, such as a lattice structure or a geometric
shape inspired by biological structures.
The choice of initial design depends on the specific application and
design requirements. In some cases, a simple initial design may be
preferred to allow for more flexibility in the optimization process and to
explore a broader range of material distributions. In other cases, a more
complex initial design may be preferred to provide a starting point
closer to the desired final design. In addition, the initial design may
also be influenced by other design parameters such as mesh size, filter
radius, and penalization power. For example, a coarser mesh size may
require a more detailed initial design to represent the design features
accurately.
Overall, the choice of initial design in metamaterial TO is an impor-
tant consideration that can significantly affect the resulting optimized
design. The initial design should be chosen carefully to achieve the final
design’s desired performance and structural characteristics.
4. Numerical examples
Several numerical simulations are performed for the selection of
topological variables for designing microstructures to maximize the
bulk modulus. Detailed investigations of the following studies are done
in this paper:
7
Composite Structures 326 (2023) 117611
• Benchmark studies: We have solved a benchmark problem for
three cases and validated it with literature. We have briefly
explained how the geometric configuration and bulk modulus
evolve with increasing iterations. For validating the results at
different volume fractions, we have compared the bulk modulus
obtained from TO with the respective HSUB of that volume
fraction.
• By varying different topological parameters, we have incorpo-
rated the following parametric investigations in this paper:
– Parametric investigations varying one parameter at a
time:
∗ Effect of volume fraction
∗ Effect of penalization power
∗ Effect of filter radius
∗ Effect of mesh size
∗ Effect of initial design
– Parametric investigations varying two parameters at a
time:
∗ Effect of mesh size and filter radius
∗ Effect of mesh size and volume fraction
∗ Effect of volume fraction and filter radius
• Case study: We have performed a case study to achieve ex-
treme metamaterial behavior based on the results of parametric
investigations.
All the simulations are carried out considering a linear elastic base
material. Two-dimensional plane stress quadrilateral elements are used
to discretize the mesh for FE analysis. The OC is used for solving the
optimization problem. The stopping criteria is achieved when the 𝐿∞
norm of the difference in density vector of two consecutive iterations is
less than 1%. The initial design for all investigations in this study is unit
cell, with a circular void zone of softer material at the middle of the
unit cell of radius 0.33 units unless otherwise specified. For all cases,
boundary conditions have been applied as discussed in Section 2.3.
Lamé parameters are calculated with 𝐸 and 𝜈 of 1 and 0.3, respectively.
𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑛 is set as 1𝑒 − 9 times 𝐸0 . We have capped the maximum allowed
optimization iterations to 300.
4.1. Benchmark studies
The 55-line python code [71] based on the open-source scientific
computing platform FEniCS [72,73] has been modified for this work
and is used for performing TO of metamaterials for maximizing the
bulk modulus. The results of the TO are exported to XDMF files and
visualized using Paraview [74].
4.1.1. Validation
For the benchmark problem, the unit cell is discretized into
100 × 100 elements and the volume fraction is 0.5. The initial design
for all cases is a circular softer region with a radius of 0.33 units. Three
cases are presented:
(a) 𝑝 = 3 and 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 5 × ℎ𝑚𝑖𝑛
(b) 𝑝 = 5 and 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 5 × ℎ𝑚𝑖𝑛
(c) 𝑝 = 5 and 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 2 × ℎ𝑚𝑖𝑛
The results of all three cases are shown in Table 1. All the designs
and objective function values closely resemble the results from Xia and
Breitkopf [65]. We have utilized projection in FEniCS, which involves
converting cell data (data specified for each cell) into point data (data
specified at individual cell points). This transformation method relies
on averaging the data values from all cells using a specific point
as a reference. Because of this, the boundaries are smoother in our
implementation.
S. Saurabh et al. Composite Structures 326 (2023) 117611

Table 1
Validation with literature. The unit cell is discretized in 100 × 100 elements and 𝑓 is 0.5. The initial design for all cases is a circular region
of a softer material with a radius of 0.33 units. Three cases are presented: (a) 𝑝 = 3 and 𝑟min = 5 × ℎ𝑚𝑖𝑛 , (b) 𝑝 = 5 and 𝑟min = 5 × ℎ𝑚𝑖𝑛 and (c)
𝑝 = 5 and 𝑟min = 2 × ℎ𝑚𝑖𝑛 . Our implementation are in close agreement with the existing literature [65].
Case From literature [65] Our implementation Remarks

(a) ∙ 𝑓 (𝜙) [65] = −0.4388

∙ 𝑓 (𝜙) = −0.4784
∙ iterations [65] = 163
∙ iterations = 103

(b) ∙ 𝑓 (𝜙) [65] = −0.5636

∙ 𝑓 (𝜙) = −0.5728
∙ iterations [65] = 269
∙ iterations = 243

(c) ∙ 𝑓 (𝜙) [65] = −0.6793

∙ 𝑓 (𝜙) = −0.6849
∙ iterations [65] = 183
∙ iterations = 134

Fig. 5. The evolution of the optimal topological design of metamaterial micro-structure. This study takes the volume fraction, penalization power, and filter radius as 0.5, 5 and
0.05 units, respectively. The design starts with a circular softer region at the center of the cell and morphs into novel optimized shapes as the iteration progresses. The final design
is obtained when no more change in the objective function is detected. Solid domains get linked together and worthless traits such as islands are eliminated.

4.1.2. Evolution of bulk modulus with iteration numbers
To see the evolution histories of microstructure design with each
iteration, the unit cell is discretized in 100 × 100 elements, volume frac-
tion, penalization power and filter radius are taken as 0.5, 5.0 and 0.05
units, respectively. Fig. 5 shows the topological design evolutions at
various iterations. The objective function reduces considerably within
the first 15 iterations then there is minimal change in further iterations.
Dynamic shifting of outlines with merging and splitting takes place.
Because of this, old holes get eliminated and new holes are formed.
Whereas the values of the objective function continuously decrease,
solid domains connect and irrelevant elements like islands are removed.
After 125 iterations, the objective function is almost the same.
Using Eq. (6), we can calculate the 𝜅 at each iteration. The evolution
histories of homogenized bulk modulus and volume fraction with the
number of iterations are shown in Fig. 6. The homogenized initial bulk
modulus was 0.009, but with TO, we are able to achieve up to 0.159.
This is a 1666.66% increase compared to the initial bulk modulus,
which was 0.009. At iteration no. 12, the bulk modulus is maximum,
i.e. 0.159. The bulk modulus values slightly decrease with a further
increase in iteration numbers.
4.1.3. Comparison of bulk modulus at different volume fractions
Using all the parameters same as used in the previous study,
i.e. mesh size of 100 × 100, penalization power of 5.0 and filter radius

8
S. Saurabh et al. Composite Structures 326 (2023) 117611

Fig. 6. Evolution histories of (a) homogenized bulk modulus and (b) volume fraction. Within the first few iterations, the homogenized bulk modulus increases drastically and
reaches maximum. With optimality criteria, the volume fraction constraint satisfies from the initial iterations to the final iteration.

𝑢𝑝
Fig. 7. Comparison between the homogenized bulk modulus and 𝜅 𝐻𝑆 at various volume fractions: (a) 0.3, (b) 0.4, (c) 0.5 and (d) 0.6. Comparison of bulk modulus of all four
𝑢𝑝
volume fractions indicates that the value of 𝜅 are close to the 𝜅 𝐻𝑆 found from Eq. (19). With varying individual control parameters, we can further increase its homogenized bulk
modulus.

of 0.05 units, TO of microstructures is performed to maximize the bulk 4.2.1. Effect of volume fraction
modulus. We find the optimum solution and its bulk modulus at 𝑓 of A unit cell with a circular region of the softer material of radius
0.30, 0.40, 0.50 and 0.60. Using 𝜅, 𝐺 and 𝑓 , we can calculate 𝜅 𝑢𝑝 𝐻𝑆 0.33 units at the middle of the unit cell is taken to study the effect of
from Eq. (19). Homogenized bulk modulus is calculated for all four volume fractions on optimized shapes and effective properties. Other
cases using Eq. (6). The comparison between the homogenized bulk parameters are 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 of 0.03 units, 𝑝 of 5 and a mesh size of 100. The 𝑓
modulus of presented solutions and 𝜅 𝑢𝑝 is shown in Fig. 7. We can
𝐻𝑆 is varied from 0.2 to 0.6. The topologies obtained for different volume
infer that the results of TO agree with 𝜅 𝑢𝑝 closely. Thus, for a target
𝐻𝑆 fractions are shown in Fig. 8.
𝜅 𝑢𝑝
𝐻𝑆
, we can get 𝑓 from 𝜅 𝑢𝑝
𝐻𝑆
and further vary other control parameters
The volume fraction defines the upper limit on the allowable pro-
to get a better design.
portion of material incorporated into the design. As evident, the bulk
modulus increases with an increase in the volume fraction as more
4.2. Parametric investigations varying one parameter at a time material is available to resist compression. Increasing the volume frac-
tion results in a stronger material but also reduces its ductility or
The final solution of TO largely depends on the control parame- ability to deform before breaking. This is because the additional solid
( ) ( )
ters like volume fraction 𝑓 , mesh size 𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑥 × 𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑦 , filter radius material may interfere with the movements within the material, making
( )
𝑟min , penalization factor (𝑝), and initial design. As a result, para- it more brittle. For volume fractions of 0.5 and 0.6, more material gets
metric investigations can serve as a guideline for determining suitable deposited toward the corners of the unit cell. With further increase,
topological control parameters for achieving extreme metamaterial it may be possible that the material gets entirely towards the outer
properties. The results presented include an optimized unit cell, 4 × 4 periphery other than the circular hole at the center. A volume frac-
assembled periodic arrangement, homogenized elasticity matrices and tion between 0.45–0.55 is desirable, considering the balance between
bulk modulus. incompressibility and material usage.

9
S. Saurabh et al. Composite Structures 326 (2023) 117611

Fig. 8. Microstructures with elasticity matrices of 2D unit cells with bulk modulus for various volume fractions: (a) 0.2, (b) 0.3, (c) 0.4, (d) 0.5 and (e) 0.6. 𝑪 and 𝜅 represent
homogenized elasticity matrix and bulk modulus, respectively. The members are getting thicker as the volume fraction increases. So, the material’s homogenized bulk modulus
also increases.

10
S. Saurabh et al.
Fig. 9. Microstructure with elasticity matrix of 2D unit cell with bulk modulus for penalization power of 3. 𝑪 and 𝜅 represent homogenized elasticity matrix and bulk modulus,
respectively.
4.2.2. Effect of penalization power
For studying the effect of penalization power on the effective prop-
erties and geometrical architecture of the unit cell, it is divided into
100 × 100 elements with 𝑝 = 3 and 𝑟min = 0.025 units. 𝑓 is taken
as 0.50. As evident from Fig. 9, no clear discernible topology exists.
The penalization effect naturally emerges in the SIMP method with-
out an explicit penalization scheme. The penalization encourages the
optimization algorithm to converge to designs clearly distinguishing
between solid and void regions, resulting in more efficient and man-
ufacturable structures. In the SIMP method, 𝑝 > 1 aims to discourage
intermediate densities between 0 (void) and 1 (solid) in the optimal
design.
Empirical evidence from practical applications suggests that a suf-
ficiently large 𝑝 value shall be chosen typically around 𝑝 ≥ 3 for
achieving true ‘‘0–1’’ designs [42]. In other words, the optimized
designs predominantly consist of fully solid or fully void regions rather
than intermediate densities. This is desirable in many engineering
applications as it simplifies manufacturing and provides structurally
efficient solutions. At 𝑝 = 3, the result is unclear, as also pointed out
by Xia and Breitkopf [65].
Therefore, we increase the 𝑝 > 3, with all other parameters constant.
The different topologies obtained with changes in the penalization
power are shown in Fig. 10. When penalization is 3.5, 𝜅 comes out
to be 0.133 and corner members are thick, but with increasing it to
4, the thickness of the members becomes even and 𝜅 comes out to be
0.138. When penalization power is 4.5, the materials get deposited to
the corners of the unit cells. When the penalization power is 6, the
members at the outer periphery of unit cells are thicker than the inner
members.
Increasing the penalization power results in shapes with smoother
contours, which can result in improved mechanical properties. Despite
larger penalization factor values leading to more distinct and cleaner
designs, the algorithm is prone to be stuck in local minima. The reason
behind this behavior is that larger penalization factors introduce more
nonlinearities into the optimization problem. These nonlinearities can
create multiple local optima in the objective function, making it more
challenging for the optimization algorithm to escape local minima and
find the globally optimal solution.
If a high level of stiffness is desired, a higher penalization power
may be used to encourage designs with fewer voids and smoother
contours. On the other hand, if a less incompressible design is desired,
a lower penalization power may be used to allow for designs with
more voids that reduce the total mass of the metamaterial. Penalization
power greater than 3 is recommended to avoid convergence issues.
11
Composite Structures 326 (2023) 117611
4.2.3. Effect of filter radius
With a filter radius of 0.015, 0.03, 0.04, 0.06 and 0.09 units,
numerical investigations are performed to study the effect of filter
radius. The other parameters are penalization power of 5, mesh size
of 100 and volume fraction of 0.4. The different topologies obtained
for filter radii are shown in Fig. 11. With increasing filter radius, the
topologies change. The value of 𝜅 decreases with an increase in the
filter radius. Initially, it comes out to be diamond-shaped, but later it
changes to a squircle.
More incompressibility is accomplished at a smaller filter radius
owing to a mechanism comprising trusses or beams joined by hinges.
The filter radius is used to apply a smoothing operation to the design
variables, which reduces design complexities and the number of design
oscillations. This leads to more smooth and well-behaved optimized
shapes.
A larger filter radius results in thicker optimized shapes with fewer
variations in the material distribution. However, a larger filter radius
can also reduce design freedom, restricting the ability to achieve com-
plex and detailed designs. On the other hand, a smaller filter radius
allows for more detailed variations in the design. A filter radius greater
than the minimum element size (ℎ𝑚𝑖𝑛 ) should be provided to avoid
mesh dependency and checker-boarding.
4.2.4. Effect of mesh size
For this study, the unit cell is divided into 50 × 50, 75 × 75,
100 × 100, 125 × 125 and 150 × 150 elements. The volume fraction
and penalization power are 0.4 and 5, respectively. For this study,
𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 is considered 5 times ℎ𝑚𝑖𝑛 . The topologies obtained for different
discretized elements are shown in Fig. 12.
We may conclude from the results that different meshes can produce
different metamaterial architectures with varied incompressibility. It
demonstrates the feasibility of numerous local configurations and sup-
ports the notion that most TO issues in engineering seldom locate the
optimal global point. It can be seen that with coarser mesh, the material
is spread sporadically in a coarser mesh, resulting in thicker compo-
nents but less incompressibility because of lesser resistance inside its
members. With finer mesh, the material is distributed uniformly, with
multiple smaller components spread more evenly inside the entire cell,
thereby improving its incompressibility.
Mesh size affects the optimized geometries significantly. With vary-
ing mesh sizes, we can get distinct topological geometries. Although
the original designs are rectangles with a circular softer region in the
center, the final optimal solution results in complex structures with
slender connecting members and sharp edges. There are no gray regions
or indistinct edges, and the interfaces between solid and void are clear.
The mesh size determines the resolution of the design variables
and can impact the accuracy and precision of the optimized shapes.
S. Saurabh et al. Composite Structures 326 (2023) 117611

Fig. 10. Microstructures with elasticity matrices of 2D unit cells with bulk modulus for various penalization power: (a) 3.5, (b) 4, (c) 4.5, (d) 6 and (e) 7. 𝑪 and 𝜅 represent
homogenized elasticity matrix and bulk modulus, respectively. With increasing penalization, we get geometries with lesser deposition of materials at the corners of unit cells. Even
though the initial configurations are simple unit cells with a circular initial guess, the final designs include complex structures with sharp borders and slender ribs.

12
S. Saurabh et al. Composite Structures 326 (2023) 117611

Fig. 11. Microstructures with elasticity matrices of 2D unit cells with bulk modulus for various filter radiuses: (a) 0.015 units, (b) 0.03 units, (c) 0.04 units, (d) 0.06 units and
(d) 0.09 units. 𝑪 and 𝜅 represent homogenized elasticity matrix and bulk modulus, respectively. With increasing filter radius, the shapes change. Initially, it comes out to be
diamond-shaped, but later it changes to a squircle. The variation of internal components in the unit cell results in a change of the value of 𝜅.

13
S. Saurabh et al.
For example, if a high level of accuracy and precision is desired,
a finer mesh size may be used. A coarser mesh size may be used
if computational resources are limited. A mesh size of 100 will be
appropriate, considering computational cost and desired property.
4.2.5. Effect of initial design
For this study, the unit cell is discretized with 100 × 100 elements.
Other parameters are 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 of 0.03 units, 𝑝 of 5 and 𝑓 of 0.5. All other
parameters are kept the same in this study except for the initial material
distribution design. Five initial material designs have been selected for
this study. A unit cell with a single circular softer region of radius 0.20
units is taken for the first case. For the second case, 4 circles of radius
0.15 units with 2 rows and 2 columns. The unit cell with 3 rows and 3
columns of 9 equally distributed circular softer regions of radius 0.10
units has been taken in the third design. For the fourth case, 16 circles
of 0.07 units radius with 4 rows and 4 columns. For the fifth case, 25
circles of radius 0.07 units with 5 rows and 5 columns. The first column
of Fig. 13 shows the initial designs of five cases.
The results presented in Fig. 13 show that the output design of
TO largely depends on the initial design. With more circular regions,
the homogenized bulk modulus reduces. But, in the fifth case, it in-
creases again. The design with an outer support structure and another
diamond-shaped internal arrangement at the center shows more resis-
tance to compressibility. In the fourth case, the bulk modulus comes
significantly less because of the formation of the cross shape in the
structure. There are large void regions along all four corners. We have
used all cases where circular softer regions were present, but there can
be many other cases [75,76].
4.3. Parametric investigations varying two parameters at a time
A set of studies are performed by varying two parameters at a
time. These studies can provide valuable insights into how multiple
parameters affect the design of microstructures. Two parameters are
varied for each study and all other parameters are kept constant.
4.3.1. Effect of mesh size and filter radius
A parametric study was done by simultaneously changing the filter
radius and mesh size while keeping other parameters constant. The
optimized designs are shown in Fig. 14. Minor changes in the geom-
etry are getting amplified with increasing the cell divisions as details
are getting more refined with increasing the discretization points.
Compared to coarser mesh, the finer mesh has more distinct and
complex arrangements in the structure. This can lead to designs with
improvements in mechanical properties, as finer details in the design
can be captured and optimized. Contrary, a coarser mesh size results
in lower accuracy and precision in the optimized shapes. This can
result in optimized shapes that miss important details that can affect
the mechanical properties of the metamaterial. However, finer mesh
size requires more computational resources, as more elements are used
to discretize the metamaterial. Therefore, finding the right balance
between mesh size and computational effort is critical in metamaterials
TO. The appropriate mesh size can be determined through trial and
error and consideration of the desired accuracy and computational
resources.
At a filter radius of 0.015 units, when we increase the number of cell
divisions, the material gets distributed more toward the outer periph-
ery. At a filter radius of 0.03 units, when we compare cell divisions of
100 with 125, we can see that when cell division is 125, there is almost
a similar design, but small holes are starting to appear. These holes
are getting amplified when cell divisions increase to 150. Finer mesh
produces designs with uniform material distribution with thin members
because the same volume fraction allows more space for the members
for deformation and thus helps increase the incompressibility.
14
Composite Structures 326 (2023) 117611
4.3.2. Effect of mesh size and volume fraction
In this study, the unit cell was discretized with various cell divisions,
i.e. 50 × 50, 75 × 75, 100 × 100, 125 × 125, and 150 × 150. Volume
fraction was also changed simultaneously, i.e., 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, and
0.6. Optimal solutions corresponding to the study are shown in Fig. 15.
The designs change drastically by varying mesh size and volume frac-
tion. As evident from the figure, with finer mesh, the material is
distributed uniformly towards the outer boundary. In coarser mesh,
the material is distributed intermittently, generating thicker members.
Mesh size provides more smoothness in the geometry and results in
more details in the design.
Volume fraction refers to the proportion of the actual volume uti-
lized in a topologically optimized design. In the figure, with an increase
in volume fraction, more material is utilized in the design, improving
the structure’s incompressibility and raising the weight and cost. In
lower volume fractions like 0.2 and 0.3, less material is used, implying
a decrease in the cost of the structure, but it also results in lower
incompressibility.
4.3.3. Effect of volume fraction and filter radius
In this study, the filter radius was changed to 0.015, 0.03, 0.045,
0.06 and 0.08 units. Volume fraction was also changed simultaneously,
i.e., 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, and 0.6. Other parameters were kept constant.
The output designs are shown in Fig. 16. Volume fraction accounts
for the total amount of material required to be utilized in the final
optimized design. The material utilization is less and the members
are thin at lesser volume fractions. An increase in volume fraction
produces less lightweight structures. At a filter radius of 0.03 units,
the material utilized increases as the volume fraction increases. The
design is diamond-shaped with slender members for a volume fraction
of 0.20. But as the volume fraction increases, more material gets spread
out in the design domain to account for more considerable volume
constraints.
Filter radius is given in TO to account for smoothness in designs
and is used to provide the minimum thickness of the member in the
topologically optimized design. With an increase in filter radius, a less
complex structure is obtained. For a constant volume fraction, when the
filter radius increases, fewer characteristics in design occur and thick
and fewer number components get visible.
Many designs have been included for easy understanding of the
changes. Even though the initial configurations are square with a
circular void, the final designs contain intricate structures with distinct
edges and delicate ribs. The lesser the material utilized, the lesser is
incompressible behavior of the unit cell. A small filter radius has a more
characteristic design for the same volume fraction than a higher filter
radius. It should be noted that for 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 of 0.06 and 0.08 at 𝑓 of 20%,
the move limit has to be reduced from 0.2 to 0.1 as the algorithm was
not able to find the local minima with existing move limit.
4.4. Case study
Considering a microstructure design for a targeted bulk modulus of
0.120. We can set 𝜅 𝑢𝑝 to 0.120. With 𝐸 and 𝜈 of 1 and 0.3, we calculate
𝐻𝑆
𝑓 using Eq. (19), which comes out to be 0.399. So, assuming 𝑓 to
be 0.40. We will vary other individual parameters to increase the bulk
modulus.
Assuming a unit cell of a circular softer region having a radius of
𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑥 ∕3. Other parameters are assumed as 𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑥 = 50, 𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑦 = 50, 𝑓 =
0.4, 𝑝 = 4.5, 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 5 in Trial 1. With this, the initial value of 𝜅 is 0.005.
After TO, the final value is 0.089. As concluded from Section 4.2.3, the
bulk modulus was maximum for 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 of 1.5, So, for Trial 2, we will
update 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 to 1.5 and take all parameters as before. The final value
after optimization is 0.115.
As concluded from Section 4.2.4, the bulk modulus was maximum
for 𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑥 and 𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑦 of 125. So, 𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑥 and 𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑦 were changed to 125 for Trial
3. The final value after optimization is 0.124. From Section 4.2.2, the
S. Saurabh et al. Composite Structures 326 (2023) 117611

Fig. 12. Microstructures with elasticity matrices of 2D unit cells with bulk modulus for various mesh sizes: (a) 50, (b) 75, (c) 100, (d) 125 and (e) 150. 𝑪 and 𝜅 represent
homogenized elasticity matrix and bulk modulus, respectively. It can be seen that with a finer mesh, the material is spread equally with thin members, giving the members greater
area for deformation. We obtain different geometrical shapes by varying the amount of discretization of elements.

15
S. Saurabh et al. Composite Structures 326 (2023) 117611

Fig. 13. Microstructures with elasticity matrices of 2D unit cells with bulk modulus for different initial designs of circular softer regions: (a) one, (b) two, (c) three, (d) four and
(e) five. 𝑪 and 𝜅 represent homogenized elasticity matrix and bulk modulus, respectively. The material’s bulk modulus decreases with an increase in the number of circular softer
regions. However, in the fifth case, there is an increase in bulk modulus because of the outer grid and interior diamond-shaped arrangement.

16
S. Saurabh et al. Composite Structures 326 (2023) 117611

Fig. 14. Designs obtained from the study performed by varying mesh size and filter radius. Filter radius and mesh size are shown in the 𝑥 and 𝑦 axes and corresponding final
optimized designs are shown. More complex geometrical features in the design with an increase in mesh size. Increasing the filter radius causes thicker members in the optimized
designs.

Fig. 15. Designs obtained from the study performed by varying mesh size and volume fraction. Mesh size and volume fraction are shown in the 𝑥 and 𝑦 axes and corresponding
final optimized designs are shown. The more the volume fraction, the more material is utilized in the design. With the increase in mesh size, the material is more uniformly
distributed in the entire unit cell.

maximum value of bulk modulus was at 𝑝 of 4.0. So, 𝑝 is updated to 4.0 not need to update the initial design. The final value after optimization
and all other parameters are taken as before for Trial 4. As we already is 0.128. After each trial, the 𝜅 value and TO designs are shown in
assumed the initial design of a single circular region of softer material, Fig. 17. The 𝜅 𝑢𝑝
𝐻𝑆
for 𝑓 of 0.4 is 0.135. The value of 𝜅 after Trial
which resulted in the best property in Section 4.2.5, therefore we do 4 is very close to the 𝜅 𝑢𝑝
𝐻𝑆
. This way, with successive updating of

17
S. Saurabh et al. Composite Structures 326 (2023) 117611

Fig. 16. Designs obtained from the study performed by varying filter radius and volume fraction. Mesh size and volume fraction are shown in the 𝑥 and 𝑦 axes. With an increase
in filter radius, members have fewer characteristics in the design. The members are getting thicker as the volume fraction increases.

𝑢𝑝
Fig. 17. Comparison between the homogenized bulk modulus and 𝜅 𝐻𝑆 at different trials. Trial 1: [𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑥 = 50, 𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑦 = 50, 𝑓 = 0.4, 𝑝 = 4.5, 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 5], Trial 2: [𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑥 = 50, 𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑦 = 50, 𝑓 =
0.4, 𝑝 = 4.5, 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 1.5], Trial 3: [𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑥 = 125, 𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑦 = 125, 𝑓 = 0.4, 𝑝 = 4.5, 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 1.5], Trial 4: [𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑥 = 125, 𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑦 = 125, 𝑓 = 0.4, 𝑝 = 4.0, 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 1.5]. With successive updation of control
parameters in different trials, the value of 𝜅 has improved and reached close to HSUB.

the control parameters, we designed metamaterial to achieve extreme
microstructure behavior.
5. Conclusion
This study presented extensive research on topological parameters
used to maximize the metamaterials’ bulk modulus and its design. The
utilized framework for the TO of metamaterials is based on optimality
criteria. Using homogenization theory, the effective elastic properties
of the unit cell are predicted. Several investigations were performed to
study the effect of topological control variables on optimized shapes
and properties. A series of new and intriguing topological patterns
of micro-structures are achieved with varying multiple topological
parameters. As evident in the case study, the proposed parameters
lead to improved material properties compared to the conventional TO
design. The main conclusions drawn from the numerical investigations
are discussed below:
• Effect of volume fraction: The incompressibility of the mi-
crostructure is directly proportional to the volume fraction, in-
dicating that higher volume fractions result in greater incom-
pressible behavior but escalate the material cost since more
material is utilized within the design domain. Conversely, lower

18
S. Saurabh et al.
volume fractions yield reduced material utilization and exhibit
less incompressible behavior. Moreover, a decrease in volume
fraction adversely affects the manufacturability of metamaterials.
Thus, it is suggested to maintain a volume fraction ranging from
0.45 to 0.55, considering the trade-off between incompressibility
and material usage.
• Effect of penalization power: A higher value of penalization
power leads to the emergence of distinct and cleaner topologies
with ‘‘0-1’’ solution. As the penalization power decreases, the
bulk modulus value initially increases but subsequently decreases
because of non-convergence. Conversely, increasing the penal-
ization power leads to an increase in bulk modulus value. It
is recommended to use a penalization power greater than 3 to
prevent convergence issues.
• Effect of filter radius: Overall, there is a consistent trend of
decrease of bulk modulus as the filter radius increases. The in-
crease in bulk modulus is due to the internal arrangement of the
unit cell. Consequently, fewer design characteristics are observed
with thicker members as the filter radius increases. A filter radius
greater than ℎ𝑚𝑖𝑛 but preferably less than 2timesℎ𝑚𝑖𝑛 is recom-
mended to avoid mesh dependency and checker-boarding and
achieve high incompressibility.
• Effect of mesh size: A finer mesh ensures a uniform distribu-
tion of material with thinner components, resulting in a larger
area for deformation and a reduction in the bulk modulus. Con-
versely, a coarser mesh leads to sporadic material distribution,
resulting in thicker components and increased incompressibility.
While a smaller mesh size can yield more accurate results, it
also comes with higher computational costs with more design
variables optimization. As cell division increases, the design com-
plexity significantly grows, revealing more characteristics and
details in the design. A mesh size of 100 is advisable, considering
the strike-off between details in design and the computational
cost.
• Effect of initial design: Many new and novel designs are achieved
with a change in the initial design. The presence of distributed
holes of softer material in the initial designs can initiate topolog-
ical changes during the early stages, offering a search direction
for the optimization process. It is advisable to provide at least
one circular softer region inside the unit cell as an initial design
to start the evolutionary process.
The scope of this study is limited to 2D metamaterials. For 3D
metamaterials, such studies can be more challenging as the computa-
tional resource requirement drastically increases. The homogenization
scheme implemented in this study identifies stiffness and bulk modulus
related to an equivalent in-plane isotropic material. In parametric stud-
ies, we have varied at most two parameters simultaneously. However,
multiple studies are possible by varying all five parameters simulta-
neously. In the initial design study, we used circular void with softer
materials, but 𝑛 numbers of initial cases, like a square solid, square
hole, circular solid, etc., can be taken. Further, the number of circular
softer regions can be increased. The effect of topological parameters
like move limit and convergence criteria can also be studied in addition
to the parameters provided in this study. The generated topologies ex-
hibit tessellating properties with smooth edges and distinct interfaces,
making 3D printing possible. Thus, the mechanical characterization of
these metamaterials can be further done experimentally.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Shubham Saurabh: Conceptualization, Investigation, Visualization,
Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft. Abhinav Gupta: Con-
ceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing – review & editing.
Rajib Chowdhury: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review
& editing.
19
Composite Structures 326 (2023) 117611
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal rela-
tionships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Shubham Saurabh reports financial support was provided by DRDO-
Defence Research and Development Laboratory, Hyderabad, India.
Rajib Chowdhury reports financial support was provided by DRDO-
Defence Research and Development Laboratory, Hyderabad, India and
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi, India.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request
Acknowledgments
The first author (Shubham Saurabh) and third author (Rajib Chowd-
hury) gratefully acknowledge the funding support from DRDO-Defence
Research and Development Laboratory, Hyderabad, India via file no.
DRDL/24/08P/19/0235/43386. The third author (Rajib Chowdhury)
also acknowledges funding support from Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research, New Delhi, India via file no. 22/0884/23/EMR-II.
References
[1] Sigmund Ole. Systematic design of metamaterials by topology optimization.
In: Pyrz R, Rauhe JC, editors. IUTAM symposium on modelling nanomaterials
and nanosystems. Vol. 13. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2009, p. 151–9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9557-3_16.
[2] Zhang Guodong, Khandelwal Kapil. Computational design of finite strain auxetic
metamaterials via topology optimization and nonlinear homogenization. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Engrg 2019;356:490–527.
[3] Zong Hongming, Zhang Hongying, Wang Yiqiang, Wang Michael Yu,
Fuh Jerry YH. On two-step design of microstructure with desired Poisson’s ratio
for AM. Mater Des 2018;159:90–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2018.
08.032.
[4] Agrawal Gourav, Gupta Abhinav, Chowdhury Rajib, Chakrabarti Anupam. Robust
topology optimization of negative Poisson’s ratio metamaterials under material
uncertainty. Finite Elem Anal Des 2022;198:103649. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.finel.2021.103649.
[5] Mizzi Luke, Azzopardi Keith M, Attard Daphne, Grima Joseph N, Gatt Ruben.
Auxetic metamaterials exhibiting giant negative Poisson’s ratios: Auxetic meta-
materials exhibiting giant negative Poisson’s ratios. Phys Status Solidi (RRL) -
Rapid Res Lett 2015;9(7):425–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pssr.201510178.
[6] Gatt Ruben, Mizzi Luke, Azzopardi Joseph I, Azzopardi Keith M, Attard Daphne,
Casha Aaron, et al. Hierarchical auxetic mechanical metamaterials. Sci Rep
2015;5(1):8395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep08395.
[7] Drosopoulos Georgios A, Kaminakis Nikolaos, Papadogianni Nikoletta,
Stavroulakis Georgios E. Mechanical behaviour of auxetic microstructures
using contact mechanics and elastoplasticity. Key Eng Mater 2016;681:100–16.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.681.100.
[8] Akamatsu Daichi, Noguchi Yuki, Matsushima Kei, Sato Yuji, Yanagimoto Jun,
Yamada Takayuki. Two-phase topology optimization for metamaterials with
negative Poisson’s ratio. Compos Struct 2023;311:116800. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.compstruct.2023.116800.
[9] Gao Jie, Wang Lin, Xiao Mi, Gao Liang, Li Peigen. An isogeometric approach to
topological optimization design of auxetic composites with tri-material micro-
architectures. Compos Struct 2021;271:114163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
compstruct.2021.114163.
[10] Zhang Huikai, Luo Yangjun, Kang Zhan. Bi-material microstructural design
of chiral auxetic metamaterials using topology optimization. Compos Struct
2018;195:232–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.04.058.
[11] Zhou Ying, Li Hao, Li Xiaopeng, Gao Liang. Design of multiphase aux-
etic metamaterials by a parametric color level set method. Compos Struct
2022;287:115385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.115385.
[12] Smith DR, Pendry JB, Wiltshire MCK. Metamaterials and Negative refrac-
tive index. Science 2004;305(5685):788–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.
1096796.
[13] Wang Yu, Luo Zhen, Zhang Nong, Wu Tao. Topological design for mechanical
metamaterials using a multiphase level set method. Struct Multidiscip Optim
2016;54(4):937–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00158-016-1458-6.
[14] Chen Yanyu, Li Tiantian, Scarpa Fabrizio, Wang Lifeng. Lattice metamaterials
with mechanically tunable Poisson’s ratio for vibration control. Phys Rev A
2017;7(2):024012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.7.024012.
S. Saurabh et al.
[15] Chen Yanyu, Qian Feng, Scarpa Fabrizio, Zuo Lei, Zhuang Xiaoying. Harnessing
multi-layered soil to design seismic metamaterials with ultralow frequency
band gaps. Mater Des 2019;175:107813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.
2019.107813.
[16] Drosopoulos Georgios, Naidoo Preyolin. Evaluation of the dynamic response
of structures using auxetic-type base isolation. Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale
2019;14(51):52–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.3221/IGF-ESIS.51.05.
[17] Liu Ze, Dong Hao-Wen, Yu Gui-Lan, Cheng Li. Achieving ultra-broadband and
ultra-low-frequency surface wave bandgaps in seismic metamaterials through
topology optimization. Compos Struct 2022;295:115863. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.compstruct.2022.115863.
[18] Chen Huanyang, Chan CT. Acoustic cloaking in three dimensions using acoustic
metamaterials. Appl Phys Lett 2007;91(18):183518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/
1.2803315.
[19] Noguchi Yuki, Matsushima Kei, Yamada Takayuki. Level set-based topology
optimization for the design of labyrinthine acoustic metamaterials. Mater Des
2022;219:110832. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110832.
[20] Zhang Xiaopeng, Li Yan, Wang Yaguang, Luo Yangjun. Ultra-wide low-frequency
bandgap design of acoustic metamaterial via multi-material topology optimiza-
tion. Compos Struct 2023;306:116584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.
2022.116584.
[21] Li Zuyu, Luo Zhen, Zhang Lai-Chang, Wang Chun-Hui. Topological design of
pentamode lattice metamaterials using a ground structure method. Mater Des
2021;202:109523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109523.
[22] Bendsøe Martin Philip, Kikuchi Noboru. Generating optimal topologies in struc-
tural design using a homogenization method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg
1988;71(2):197–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0045-7825(88)90086-2.
[23] Munk David J, Auld Douglass J, Steven Grant P, Vio Gareth A. On the benefits of
applying topology optimization to structural design of aircraft components. Struct
Multidiscip Optim 2019;60(3):1245–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00158-019-
02250-6.
[24] Zhu Ji-Hong, Zhang Wei-Hong, Xia Liang. Topology optimization in aircraft and
aerospace structures design. Arch Comput Methods Eng 2016;23(4):595–622.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11831-015-9151-2.
[25] Yoon Gil Ho. Topology optimization for stationary fluid-structure interaction
problems using a new monolithic formulation: Topology optimization for sta-
tionary FSI problems. Internat J Numer Methods Engrg 2010;82(5):591–616.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nme.2777.
[26] Andreasen Casper Schousboe, Sigmund Ole. Topology optimization of
fluid–structure-interaction problems in poroelasticity. Comput Methods Appl
Mech Engrg 2013;258:55–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2013.02.007.
[27] Xia Liang, Breitkopf Piotr. Recent advances on topology optimization of multi-
scale nonlinear structures. Arch Comput Methods Eng 2017;24(2):227–49. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11831-016-9170-7.
[28] Patel Darshil, Bielecki Dustin, Rai Rahul, Dargush Gary. Improving connectivity
and accelerating multiscale topology optimization using deep neural network
techniques. Struct Multidiscip Optim 2022;65(4):126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s00158-022-03223-y.
[29] Zhang Yan, Zhang Lei, Ding Zhe, Gao Liang, Xiao Mi, Liao Wei-Hsin. A multi-
scale topological design method of geometrically asymmetric porous sandwich
structures for minimizing dynamic compliance. Mater Des 2022;214:110404.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110404.
[30] Liu Pai, Yan Yi, Zhang Xiaopeng, Luo Yangjun, Kang Zhan. Topological design of
microstructures using periodic material-field series-expansion and gradient-free
optimization algorithm. Mater Des 2021;199:109437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.matdes.2020.109437.
[31] Wilt Jackson K, Yang Charles, Gu Grace X. Accelerating auxetic metamaterial
design with deep learning. Adv Energy Mater 2020;22(5):1901266. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1002/adem.201901266.
[32] Vangelatos Zacharias, Gu Grace X, Grigoropoulos Costas P. Architected metama-
terials with tailored 3D buckling mechanisms at the microscale. Extreme Mech
Lett 2019;33:100580. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eml.2019.100580.
[33] Ai L, Gao X-L. Topology optimization of 2-D mechanical metamaterials using a
parametric level set method combined with a meshfree algorithm. Compos Struct
2019;229:111318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111318.
[34] Jia Jiao, Da Daicong, Hu Jianxing, Yin Sha. Crashworthiness design of periodic
cellular structures using topology optimization. Compos Struct 2021;271:114164.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114164.
[35] Bendsøe MP, Sigmund O. Material interpolation schemes in topology optimiza-
tion. Arch Appl Mech (Ingenieur Archiv) 1999;69(9–10):635–54. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s004190050248.
[36] Chu Sheng, Xiao Mi, Gao Liang, Li Hao, Zhang Jinhao, Zhang Xiaoyu. Topol-
ogy optimization of multi-material structures with graded interfaces. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Engrg 2019;346:1096–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
cma.2018.09.040.
[37] Areias P, Rodrigues HC, Rabczuk T. Coupled finite-element/topology optimiza-
tion of continua using the Newton-Raphson method. Eur J Mech A Solids
2021;85:104117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2020.104117.
[38] Banh Thanh T, Lee Dongkyu. Multi-material topology optimization design for
continuum structures with crack patterns. Compos Struct 2018;186:193–209.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.11.088.
20
Composite Structures 326 (2023) 117611
[39] Gupta Abhinav, Mamindlapelly Bhagath, Karuthedath Philip Luke, Chowd-
hury Rajib, Chakrabarti Anupam. Adaptive isogeometric topology optimization
using PHT splines. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg 2022;395:114993.
[40] Karuthedath Philip Luke, Gupta Abhinav, Mamindlapelly Bhagath, Chowd-
hury Rajib. A continuous field adaptive mesh refinement algorithm for
isogeometric topology optimization using PHT-splines. Comput Methods Appl
Mech Engrg 2023;412:116075.
[41] Stolpe Mathias, Svanberg Krister. An alternative interpolation scheme
for minimum compliance topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim
2001;22(2):116–24.
[42] Bendsøe Martin P, Sigmund Ole. Topology optimization. Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer; 2004, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-05086-6.
[43] Baumgartner A, Harzheim L, Mattheck C. SKO (soft kill option): The biological
way to find an optimum structure topology. Int J Fatigue 1992;14(6):387–93.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0142-1123(92)90226-3.
[44] Xie Yi Min, Steven Grant P. A simple evolutionary procedure for structural
optimization. Comput Struct 1993;49(5):885–96.
[45] Xie Y Mike, Steven Grant P, Xie YM, Steven GP. Basic evolutionary structural
optimization. Springer; 1997.
[46] Querin Osvaldo M, Steven Grant P, Xie Yi Min. Evolutionary struc-
tural optimisation (ESO) using a bidirectional algorithm. Eng Comput
1998;15(8):1031–48.
[47] Huang X, Xie YM. Evolutionary topology optimization of continuum structures:
Methods and applications. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2010, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470689486.
[48] Li Hao, Luo Zhen, Gao Liang, Qin Qinghua. Topology optimization for concurrent
design of structures with multi-patch microstructures by level sets. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Engrg 2018;331:536–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.
2017.11.033.
[49] Ghasemi Hamid, Park Harold S, Rabczuk Timon. A multi-material level set-based
topology optimization of flexoelectric composites. Comput Methods Appl Mech
Engrg 2018;332:47–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2017.12.005.
[50] Zhang Lei, Ding Zhe, Sha Wei, Zhang Yan, Xiao Mi, Gao Liang, et al. Level
set-based topological design of multiphase micro-architectured materials using
alternating active-phase method. Mater Des 2023;225:111448. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.matdes.2022.111448.
[51] Svanberg Krister. The method of moving asymptotes—a new method for
structural optimization. Internat J Numer Methods Engrg 1987;24(2):359–73.
[52] Bendsoe Martin P. Optimization of structural topology, shape, and material.
Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 1995, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-
03115-5.
[53] Kane Couro, Schoenauer Marc. Topological optimum design using genetic
algorithms. Control Cybernet 1996;25(5):1059–88.
[54] Luh Guan-Chun, Lin Chun-Yi, Lin Yu-Shu. A binary particle swarm opti-
mization for continuum structural topology optimization. Appl Soft Comput
2011;11(2):2833–44.
[55] Sigmund Ole. Materials with prescribed constitutive parameters: An inverse
homogenization problem. Int J Solids Struct 1994;31(17):2313–29. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/0020-7683(94)90154-6.
[56] Neves MM, Rodrigues H, Guedes JM. Optimal design of periodic linear elastic
microstructures. Comput Struct 2000;76(1–3):421–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0045-7949(99)00172-8.
[57] Diaz Alejandro R, Sigmund Ole. A topology optimization method for
design of negative permeability metamaterials. Struct Multidiscip Optim
2010;41(2):163–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00158-009-0416-y.
[58] Lu Lirong, Yamamoto Takashi, Otomori Masaki, Yamada Takayuki, Izui Kazuhiro,
Nishiwaki Shinji. Topology optimization of an acoustic metamaterial with neg-
ative bulk modulus using local resonance. Finite Elem Anal Des 2013;72:1–12.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2013.04.005.
[59] Luo Zhen, Wang Michael Yu, Wang Shengyin, Wei Peng. A level set-based
parameterization method for structural shape and topology optimization. Internat
J Numer Methods Engrg 2008;76(1):1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nme.2092.
[60] Huang X, Radman A, Xie YM. Topological design of microstructures of cel-
lular materials for maximum bulk or shear modulus. Comput Mater Sci
2011;50(6):1861–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2011.01.030.
[61] Allaire Grégoire. Homogenization and two-scale convergence. SIAM J Math Anal
1992;23(6):1482–518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/0523084.
[62] Zhang Weihong, Dai Gaoming, Wang Fengwen, Sun Shiping, Bassir Hicham.
Using strain energy-based prediction of effective elastic properties in topology
optimization of material microstructures. Acta Mech Sin 2007;23(1):77–89. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10409-006-0045-2.
[63] Neves M Matos, Rodrigues H, Guedes J Miranda. Optimal design of periodic
linear elastic microstructures. Comput Struct 2000;76(1–3):421–9.
[64] Hassani B, Hinton E. A review of homogenization and topology opimization II DH
analytical and numerical solution of homogenization equations. Comput Struct
1998;20.
[65] Xia Liang, Breitkopf Piotr. Design of materials using topology optimization
and energy-based homogenization approach in Matlab. Struct Multidiscip Optim
2015;52(6):1229–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00158-015-1294-0.
S. Saurabh et al.
[66] Neves MM, Rodrigues H, Guedes JM. Optimal design of periodic linear elastic
microstructures. Comput Struct 2000;76(1–3):421–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0045-7949(99)00172-8.
[67] Hashin Z, Shtrikman S. A variational approach to the theory of the elastic
behaviour of multiphase materials. J Mech Phys Solids 1963;11(2):127–40.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(63)90060-7.
[68] Sigmund Ole. Morphology-based black and white filters for topology optimiza-
tion. Struct Multidiscip Optim 2007;33(4):401–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s00158-006-0087-x.
[69] Sigmund O, Petersson J. Numerical instabilities in topology optimization:
A survey on procedures dealing with checkerboards, mesh-dependencies
and local minima. Struct Optim 1998;16(1):68–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
BF01214002.
[70] Andreassen Erik, Clausen Anders, Schevenels Mattias, Lazarov Boyan S, Sig-
mund Ole. Efficient topology optimization in MATLAB using 88 lines of code.
Struct Multidiscip Optim 2011;43(1):1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00158-
010-0594-7.
21
Composite Structures 326 (2023) 117611
[71] Gupta Abhinav, Chowdhury Rajib, Chakrabarti Anupam, Rabczuk Timon. A 55-
line code for large-scale parallel topology optimization in 2D and 3D. 2020,
http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2012.08208, arXiv. arXiv:2012.08208.
[72] Logg Anders, Mardal Kent-Andre, Wells Garth. Automated solution of differential
equations by the finite element method: The FEniCS book. Vol. 84. Springer
Science & Business Media; 2012.
[73] Alnæs Martin, Blechta Jan, Hake Johan, Johansson August, Kehlet Benjamin,
Logg Anders, et al. The FEniCS project version 1.5. Arch Numer Softw
2015;3(100). http://dx.doi.org/10.11588/ans.2015.100.20553.
[74] Ahrens James, Geveci Berk, Law Charles. ParaView: An end-user tool for large-
data visualization. In: Visualization handbook. Elsevier; 2005, p. 717–31. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-012387582-2/50038-1.
[75] Sridhara Saketh, Chandrasekhar Aaditya, Suresh Krishnan. A generalized frame-
work for microstructural optimization using neural networks. Mater Des
2022;223:111213.
[76] Gao Jie, Li Hao, Luo Zhen, Gao Liang, Li Peigen. Topology optimization of
micro-structured materials featured with the specific mechanical properties. Int
J Comput Methods 2020;17(03):1850144.