Parametric optimization of auxetic lattices using Grasshopper and Abaqus validation

Issue 16(1)2026
Published Apr 2, 2026
https://doi.org/10.46223/HCMCOUJS.acs.en.16.1.82.2026
Date
Received: 2026-01-25
Accepted: 2026-03-24
Published: 2026-04-02
Download
PDF
Statistics
Views: 336
PDF - Downloads: 111

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
16(1)2026

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Nguyen Tran Trung - trung.nt@vlu.edu.vn
Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8419-3863

Abstract

This study develops a parametric workflow for designing and optimizing auxetic-like cellular lattices in Rhino Grasshopper and Karamba3D, followed by nonlinear verification in ABAQUS. Since Karamba3D is limited to conventional linear-elastic material definitions, a Python routine was used to update the effective Young’s modulus of each lattice candidate from its geometry-based porosity through a porosity-modulus correlation. Honeycomb, diamond, and Voronoi lattices were parameterized and explored using the Galapagos evolutionary solver under geometric and manufacturability constraints, with tensile displacement under uniaxial loading as the optimization objective. Auxetic behaviour was evaluated through an effective Poisson’s ratio calculated from transverse and longitudinal gauge strains measured on the deformed configurations. The optimized cases maintained negative effective Poisson’s ratios of veff » -0.14 for the honeycomb lattice and
veff » -0.9 for the diamond and Voronoi lattices. Selected designs were then transferred to ABAQUS for three-dimensional finite element verification using an Arruda-Boyce hyperelastic model calibrated to published tensile test data for hybrid PolyJet-printed Agilus30/VeroMagentaV specimens. The verification results indicate that lattice geometry plays the primary role in the observed response, with lower displacement and a more even stress distribution observed in the better-performing cases. Among the three lattice families, the Voronoi configurations showed the most consistent combination of low displacement, stable auxetic response, and comparatively uniform stress patterns.

Keywords

auxetic behaviour; ABAQUS; Grasshopper; Karamba3D; parametric optimisation

License
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Nguyen, T. T. (2026). Parametric optimization of auxetic lattices using Grasshopper and Abaqus validation. HCMCOU Journal of Science - Advances in Computational Structures, 16(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.46223/HCMCOUJS.acs.en.16.1.82.2026
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Aliha, M. R. M., Berto, F., Bahmani, A., & Gallo, P. (2017). Mixed mode I/II fracture investigation of Perspex based on the averaged strain energy density criterion. Physical Mesomechanics, 20(2), 149-156. https://doi.org/10.1134/s1029959917020059
  2. Arruda, E. M., & Boyce, M. C. (1993). A three-dimensional constitutive model for the large stretch behavior of rubber elastic materials. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 41(2), 389-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(93)90013-6
  3. Attaran, M. (2017). The rise of 3-D printing: The advantages of additive manufacturing over traditional manufacturing. Business Horizons, 60(5), 677-688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.05.011
  4. Cubukcuoglu, C., Ekici, B., Tasgetiren, M. F., & Sariyildiz, S. (2019). Optimus: Self-adaptive differential evolution with ensemble of mutation strategies for grasshopper algorithmic modeling. Algorithms, 12(7), Article 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/a12070141
  5. Goldstein, R. V., Gorodtsov, V. A., & Lisovenko, D. S. (2015). Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio for seven-constant tetragonal crystals and nano/microtubes. Physical Mesomechanics, 18(3), 213-222. https://doi.org/10.1134/s1029959915030054
  6. Goldstein, R. V., Gorodtsov, V. A., Lisovenko, D. S., & Volkov, M. A. (2014). Negative Poisson’s ratio for cubic crystals and nano/microtubes. Physical Mesomechanics, 17(2), 97-115. https://doi.org/10.1134/s1029959914020027
  7. Jiang, Y., & Li, Y. (2016). 3D printed chiral cellular solids with amplified auxetic effects due to elevated internal rotation. Advanced Engineering Materials, 19(2), Article 1600609. https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.201600609
  8. Jiang, Y., & Li, Y. (2018). 3D printed auxetic mechanical metamaterial with chiral cells and re-entrant cores. Scientific Reports, 8(1), Article 2397. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20795-2
  9. Kováčik, J. (1999). Correlation between Young’s modulus and porosity in porous materials. Journal of Materials Science Letters, 18(13), 1007-1010. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1006669914946
  10. Kováčik, J. (2006). Correlation between Poisson’s ratio and porosity in porous materials. Journal of Materials Science, 41(4), 1247-1249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-005-4237-0
  11. Linul, E., Serban, D. A., & Marsavina, L. (2018). Influence of cell topology on mode I fracture toughness of cellular structures. Physical Mesomechanics, 21(2), 178-186. https://doi.org/10.1134/s1029959918020121
  12. Panin, V. E., & Egorushkin, V. E. (2009). Physical mesomechanics and nonequilibrium thermodynamics as a methodological basis for nanomaterials science. Physical Mesomechanics, 12(5-6), 204-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physme.2009.12.002
  13. Panin, V. E., Egorushkin, V. E., & Panin, A. V. (2013). Nonlinear wave processes in a deformable solid as a hierarchically organized system. Physical Mesomechanics, 15(3-4), 133-146. https://doi.org/10.1134/s1029959912020014
  14. Panin, V. E., Panin, A. V., & Moiseenko, D. D. (2007). Physical mesomechanics of a deformed solid as a multilevel system. II. Chessboard-like mesoeffect of the interface in heterogeneous media in external fields. Physical Mesomechanics, 10(1-2), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physme.2007.06.001
  15. Preisinger, C. (2013). Linking structure and parametric geometry. Architectural Design, 83(2), 110-113. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1564
  16. Rajasekaran, S., & Pai, G. V. (2003). Neural networks, fuzzy logic and genetic algorithm: Synthesis and applications. PHI Learning.
  17. Saremi, S., Mirjalili, S., & Lewis, A. (2017). Grasshopper optimisation algorithm: Theory and application. Advances in Engineering Software, 105, 30-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.01.004
  18. Tee, Y. L., Peng, C., Pille, P., Leary, M., & Tran, P. (2020). PolyJet 3D printing of composite materials: Experimental and modelling approach. JOM, 72(3), 1105-1117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-020-04014-w
  19. Varotsis, A. B. (2018). Introduction to SLS 3D printing. 3D Hubs. https://www.3dhubs.com/knowledge-base/introduction-sla-3d-printing
  20. Warner, J. J., Gillies, A. R., Hwang, H. H., Zhang, H., Lieber, R. L., & Chen, S. (2017). 3D-printed biomaterials with regional auxetic properties. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 76, 145-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.05.016
  21. Yang, W., Li, Z.-M., Shi, W., Xie, B.-H., & Yang, M.-B. (2004). Review on auxetic materials. Journal of Materials Science, 39(10), 3269-3279. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JMSC.0000026928.93231.e0
  22. Zenkour, A. M. (2020). Quasi-3D refined theory for functionally graded porous plates: Displacements and stresses. Physical Mesomechanics, 23(1), 39-53. https://doi.org/10.1134/s1029959920010051
  23. Zheng, H., & Darweesh, B. (2019). Caterpillar: A gcode translator in grasshopper. 24th Annual Conference of the Association for Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA 2019), Intelligent & Informed.