pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.26732 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · ⚛️ physics.app-ph

Recognition: unknown

Unveiling the key role of Interfaces in the Design of finite-sized Metamaterial Structures

Svenja Hermann , K\'evin Billon , Manuel Collet , Angela Madeo
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 11:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.app-ph
keywords mechanical metamaterialsvibration dampinginterfacesfinite structuressandwich configurationvibroacoustic couplingnoise reduction
0
0 comments X

The pith

Optimizing the cuts at metamaterial-plate interfaces can shift finite structures from underperforming to outperforming classical vibration dampers.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper shows that four different ways of cutting the same metamaterial unit cell at its boundary with adjacent plates create identical behavior in an infinite material but produce markedly different vibration transmission, local motions, and vibroacoustic coupling once the structure is finite and sandwiched between two plates. Experiments and finite-element models confirm that these interface choices, together with the plates themselves, control how well the whole assembly damps noise and vibration. The authors further demonstrate that selecting the right interface type allows the metamaterial sandwich to exceed the performance of standard civil-engineering damping solutions in some cases. A reader cares because real applications always use finite-sized parts, so boundary details can determine whether a metamaterial works at all.

Core claim

The central claim is that material interfaces (arising from different unit-cell cuts at the metamaterial/plate boundary) and free interfaces strongly govern the global vibration response, local displacement fields, and vibroacoustic coupling of finite-sized sandwich metamaterial structures, even though all four cuts produce the identical infinite periodic metamaterial; optimizing these interfaces plus the adjacent homogeneous plates enables the finite structure to achieve significantly better damping than classical benchmark solutions.

What carries the argument

The material interfaces created by different unit-cell cuts at the metamaterial/plate boundary, which fix the connection geometry while leaving the bulk periodic response unchanged.

If this is right

  • Different interface types produce distinct global vibration transmission characteristics in the finite sandwich structures.
  • The strength and character of vibroacoustic coupling depends on the chosen metamaterial/plate interface.
  • Local displacement fields inside the metamaterial array vary with interface design.
  • Interface optimization together with plate design can raise damping performance above that of classical civil-engineering solutions.
  • These effects appear in both experimental measurements and validated finite-element models of the tested configurations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Metamaterial design for real engineering parts should treat the boundary cut as a primary design variable on equal footing with the repeating cell geometry.
  • The same interface sensitivity may limit or enable performance in other finite-domain metamaterial uses such as acoustic isolation or energy harvesting.
  • Periodic-boundary simulations that ignore interfaces will systematically miss the performance that can be reached (or lost) in actual limited-size devices.
  • The approach suggests that simple geometric rules for choosing the cut could be derived to guide interface selection without exhaustive testing.

Load-bearing premise

The four unit-cell cuts produce identical infinite metamaterials yet allow the finite vibration responses to be tuned independently through interface choice alone.

What would settle it

Finding identical vibration transmission spectra and damping levels across all four differently cut finite sandwich specimens would falsify the claim that interface type controls the performance difference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26732 by Angela Madeo, K\'evin Billon, Manuel Collet, Svenja Hermann.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Portion of an infinitely large metamaterial (a) from which four unit cells with similar view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic representation of the sandwich structures comprising 2 view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Specimens manufactured for the experiments. Back row from left to right: 2 view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sketch of the experimental setup. a(t) – acceleration time signal, v(t) – velocity time signal, t – time, P1 – position of accelerometer on input side, P ′ i – measurement point on output side (i = 1, .., N), a(ω) – acceleration frequency spectrum, ω – angular frequency. The result depends on the number and location of the points over which the average is calculated. We analyzed the influence of a differen… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Models used for Bloch-Floquet analysis: Purely mechanical model (top) and a vibroa view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Models of the finite-sized metamaterial specimens for the view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Finite-sized metamaterial structure (left) with 2 view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dispersion curves obtained from 3D simulations from the purely mechanical model (a) view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Amplitude of the average transfer function, view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Amplitude of the average transfer function, view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the dynamic behavior of all specimens obtained from the mechanical view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Amplitudes of the experimentally obtained transfer function, view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of experimental and numerical results: amplitude of the average transfer view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Illustration of resonance modes: Normalized amplitude of the modal displacement field view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Displacement field ˆu of the first resonance mode (a) and the second resonance mode (b) obtained from the numerical vibroacoustic model for the four different cuts with 2 × 3 and 2 × 4 unit cells respectively. 3.3.2 Displacement field of local resonance modes We demonstrate the influence of the boundary conditions on local modes with two examples in the following. Firstly, the results in view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Displacement field ˆu of the local resonance mode at 700 Hz in the α configuration and at 720 Hz in the δ configuration obtained from the numerical vibroacoustic models. Secondly, the experimental and numerical results in view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: shows, that most of the displacement is transmitted via the free boundaries of the specimens for the corresponding resonance modes which are so-called edge modes. They can be observed in dispersion diagrams when the Floquet-Bloch analysis comprises more than one unit cell and when the periodic boundary conditions are only applied in the direction of wave propagation (cf. Appendix B.8, Figure B.10). In the… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Amplitude of the average transfer function, view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Amplitude of the average transfer function, view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Influence of loading type (uniform acceleration view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Displacement field ˆu of the α 2×3 at 660 Hz obtained with different plate thickness. In the cases represented in the three top pictures, a uniform pressure was applied as a loading; in the cases represented in the three bottom pictures, a uniform acceleration was applied as a loading. The scale of the color range is logarithmic. 3.5 Comparison of vibroacoustic properties to benchmark solutions In this se… view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Comparison to benchmarks: transmission loss at normal incidence view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Visualization of the performance indicator: The quantity log view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper investigates the influence of interfaces on the performance of finite-sized mechanical metamaterial structures for vibration damping applications. The metamaterial structures are designed in a sandwich configuration in which two homogeneous plates are connected to a metamaterial array. We test four different arrays that are obtained from the same metamaterial by differently cutting the metamaterial's unit cell at the metamaterial/plate interface. When the four unit cells are periodically repeated in space, they create the same infinitely large metamaterial with an identical mechanical response. In finite-sized structures, however, the different interfaces between the metamaterial array and the plates~--~called ``material interfaces''~--~and between the metamaterial and the air~--~called ``free interfaces''~--~strongly affect the specimen's vibration transmission characteristics. Using experimental measurements and validated finite-element (FE) models, we demonstrate a significant influence of the different types of interfaces on the global responses and local displacement fields of the structures. We also demonstrate the presence of a vibroacoustic coupling in the structures which also depends on the type of metamaterial/plate interfaces. Furthermore, we explore optimization strategies for enhancing the vibration damping performance of the metamaterial structures considering not only the metamaterial array but also the adjacent structures (the homogeneous plates). A comparison with benchmark cases illustrates the optimization potential that the interfaces' design offers for the vibration damping capability of finite-sized metamaterial structures. We show that optimizing the type of targeted interfaces can shift a metamaterial's response from underperforming to significantly outperforming compared to classical solutions for noise and vibration damping in civil engineering.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the role of material and free interfaces in finite-sized sandwich metamaterial structures for vibration damping. Four arrays are obtained by different cuts of the same unit cell at the metamaterial/plate boundary; these cuts are asserted to yield identical infinite periodic metamaterials but produce distinctly different finite-structure vibration transmission and vibroacoustic responses. Experiments and validated FE models are used to demonstrate interface-driven changes in global responses, local displacement fields, and vibroacoustic coupling. Optimization strategies that include the adjacent plates are explored, with comparisons to benchmark cases showing that interface choice can shift performance from under- to outperforming classical civil-engineering dampers.

Significance. If the asserted equivalence of the infinite metamaterials holds and the reported performance gains are reproducible, the work provides a concrete demonstration that interface geometry is a first-order design variable for finite metamaterial assemblies. This offers a practical route to performance improvement without altering the core metamaterial lattice, which is directly relevant to noise and vibration control in civil engineering.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and methods] Abstract and §2 (or equivalent methods section): the claim that the four unit-cell cuts produce 'the same infinitely large metamaterial with an identical mechanical response' is load-bearing for the entire attribution of finite-size differences to interface choice alone, yet no dispersion diagrams, Bloch-wave calculations, or homogenized effective-density/moduli tensors are presented to verify equivalence across the four cuts. Without this, differences in finite-structure behavior could partly arise from altered lattice vectors or connectivity rather than interface geometry.
  2. [Results/Validation] Results section on experimental validation: the manuscript states that FE models are 'validated' against measurements, but provides no quantitative error metrics, mesh-convergence data, or boundary-condition details for the four interface configurations. This weakens the evidential support for the optimization claims that move the structure from under- to outperforming classical solutions.
  3. [Optimization and comparison] Optimization and benchmark comparison: the statement that interface optimization 'can shift a metamaterial's response from underperforming to significantly outperforming' requires explicit quantification (e.g., transmission loss values, frequency ranges, and statistical significance) relative to the classical benchmarks; the current description remains qualitative.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] Notation for 'material interfaces' versus 'free interfaces' is introduced in the abstract but should be defined with a figure or schematic early in the text for clarity.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions should explicitly state the frequency range and excitation type used for each displacement-field plot to allow direct comparison with the transmission curves.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below and indicate the revisions we will make to strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and methods] Abstract and §2 (or equivalent methods section): the claim that the four unit-cell cuts produce 'the same infinitely large metamaterial with an identical mechanical response' is load-bearing for the entire attribution of finite-size differences to interface choice alone, yet no dispersion diagrams, Bloch-wave calculations, or homogenized effective-density/moduli tensors are presented to verify equivalence across the four cuts. Without this, differences in finite-structure behavior could partly arise from altered lattice vectors or connectivity rather than interface geometry.

    Authors: The four different cuts are obtained by slicing the same periodic metamaterial unit cell at different locations along the interface, such that when periodically extended, they reconstruct the identical infinite lattice with the same connectivity and lattice vectors. However, to provide explicit verification as requested, we will add dispersion diagrams computed via Bloch-wave analysis for all four configurations in the revised manuscript. These will demonstrate identical band structures, confirming that the infinite metamaterials are equivalent and that observed differences stem from the finite interfaces. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results/Validation] Results section on experimental validation: the manuscript states that FE models are 'validated' against measurements, but provides no quantitative error metrics, mesh-convergence data, or boundary-condition details for the four interface configurations. This weakens the evidential support for the optimization claims that move the structure from under- to outperforming classical solutions.

    Authors: We agree that the validation section would benefit from more quantitative details. In the revision, we will include relative error metrics between experimental and FE results for key quantities (e.g., transmission loss), mesh convergence studies showing independence of results from discretization, and explicit descriptions of boundary conditions applied to each of the four configurations. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Optimization and comparison] Optimization and benchmark comparison: the statement that interface optimization 'can shift a metamaterial's response from underperforming to significantly outperforming' requires explicit quantification (e.g., transmission loss values, frequency ranges, and statistical significance) relative to the classical benchmarks; the current description remains qualitative.

    Authors: We will revise the relevant sections to provide explicit quantitative comparisons. This will include tabulated transmission loss values over specific frequency bands, identification of the frequency ranges where the optimized interfaces outperform the benchmarks, and direct numerical comparisons to the classical civil-engineering dampers, thereby quantifying the shift from under- to outperforming performance. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results rest on independent experiments and FE validation

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation chain, equations, or first-principles results that reduce to their own inputs by construction. Central claims about interface effects on finite structures are demonstrated via physical measurements and validated finite-element models. The premise that the four cuts produce identical infinite metamaterials follows directly from periodic repetition of the same underlying unit cell and is not used to derive or fit the reported finite-size performance differences. No self-citations, ansatzes, or fitted inputs are load-bearing for the optimization conclusions. The analysis is self-contained against external physical benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that different interface cuts preserve identical infinite periodic response while altering finite behavior; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Different cuts of the same unit cell at the metamaterial/plate interface produce identical mechanical response when the cells are periodically repeated to form an infinite metamaterial.
    Explicitly stated in the abstract as the basis for isolating interface effects in finite structures.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5599 in / 1283 out tokens · 55114 ms · 2026-05-07T11:36:21.954125+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Jim´ enez, J.P

    N. Jim´ enez, J.P. Groby, and V. Romero-Garc´ ıa.Acoustic Waves in Periodic Structures, Metamaterials, and Porous Media. Springer, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    V. Laude. Principles and properties of phononic crystal waveguides.Apl Materials, 9(8), 2021. doi: 10.1063/5.0059035

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0059035 2021

  3. [3]

    G. Hu, L. Tang, J. Liang, C. Lan, and R. Das. Acoustic-elastic metamaterials and phononic crystals for energy harvesting: A review.Smart Materials and Structures, 30(8):085025, 2021. doi: 10.1088/1361- 665X/ac0cbc

    work page doi:10.1088/1361- 2021

  4. [4]

    P. Zhou, S. Wan, X. Wang, J. Fu, and Y. Zhu. A novel hybrid composite phononic crystal plate with multiple vibration band gaps at low frequencies.Physica B: Condensed Matter, 623:413366, 2021. doi: 10.1088/1361-665X/ac0cbc

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-665x/ac0cbc 2021

  5. [5]

    Gan.New acoustics based on metamaterials

    W.S. Gan.New acoustics based on metamaterials. Springer, 2018

    2018

  6. [6]

    Zangeneh-Nejad and R

    F. Zangeneh-Nejad and R. Fleury. Active times for acoustic metamaterials.Reviews in Physics, 4:100031, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.revip.2019.100031

    work page doi:10.1016/j.revip.2019.100031 2019

  7. [7]

    Romero-Garcia and A.C

    V. Romero-Garcia and A.C. Hladky-Hennion.Fundamentals and applications of acoustic metamaterials: from seismic to radio frequency. John Wiley & Sons, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    Claeys, E

    N.G.R de Melo Filho, C. Claeys, E. Deckers, and W. Desmet. Realisation of a thermoformed vibro- acoustic metamaterial for increased STL in acoustic resonance driven environments.Applied Acoustics, 156:78–82, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2019.07.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2019.07.007 2019

  9. [9]

    Riess, M

    S. Riess, M. Droste, D. Manushyna, S. Melzer, T. Druwe, T. Georgi, and H. Atzrodt. Vibroacous- tic Metamaterials for enhanced acoustic Behavior of Vehicle Doors. In2021 Fifteenth International Congress on Artificial Materials for Novel Wave Phenomena (Metamaterials), pages 374–376. IEEE,

  10. [10]

    (doi: 10.1109/Metamaterials52332.2021.9577065)

    work page doi:10.1109/metamaterials52332.2021.9577065 2021

  11. [11]

    D’Amore, S

    G.K.O. D’Amore, S. Caverni, M. Biot, G. Rognoni, and L. D’Alessandro. A Metamaterial Solution for Soundproofing on Board Ship.Applied Sciences, 12(13):6372, 2022. (doi: 10.3390/app12136372)

    work page doi:10.3390/app12136372 2022

  12. [12]

    Chaplain, F

    G.J. Chaplain, F. Langfeldt, V. Romero-Garc´ ıa, N. Jim´ enez, Y. Meng, J.-P. Groby, V. Pagneux, D. Moore, A.P. Hibbins, J.R. Sambles, T.A. Starkey, B.-I. Popa, Z. Zhang, J. Christensen, X. Wen, J. Li, R. Fleury, S.P. Wallen, M.R. Haberman, M.I. Hussein, G. Memoli, G. Fusaro, D. D’Orazio, L. Barbaresi, M. Garai, L. Chisari, P. Mittal, Z. Qi, S. Subramania...

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6463/add306 2024

  13. [13]

    Kumar and H.P

    S. Kumar and H.P. Lee. The present and future role of acoustic metamaterials for architectural and urban noise mitigations.Acoustics, 1(3):590–607, 2019. doi: 10.3390/acoustics1030035

    work page doi:10.3390/acoustics1030035 2019

  14. [14]

    Fassold and E

    W. Fassold and E. Veres.Schallschutz und Raumakustik in der Praxis, 1. Berlin: Verlag f¨ ur Bauwesen, 1998

    1998

  15. [15]

    Holliman, H.T

    J.E. Holliman, H.T. Schaef, B.P. McGrail, and Q.R.S. Miller. Review of foundational concepts and emerging directions in metamaterial research: design, phenomena, and applications.Materials Ad- vances, 3(23):8390–8406, 2022. doi: 10.1039/d2ma00497f

    work page doi:10.1039/d2ma00497f 2022

  16. [16]

    Valappil, J.F.L

    S.V. Valappil, J.F.L. Goosen, and A.M. Arag´ on. Multi-objective design of 3d phononic crystal waveguide by design space trimming.Materials & Design, 237:112594, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2023.112594

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2023.112594 2024

  17. [17]

    Y. Li, Y. Luo, and X. Zhang. Topological design of phononic crystals for multiple wide band gaps. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 529:116962, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.jsv.2022.116962

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2022.116962 2022

  18. [18]

    V. Cool, E. Deckers, L. Van Belle, and C. Claeys. A guide to numerical dispersion curve calcula- tions: Explanation, interpretation and basic matlab code.Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 215:111393, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2024.111393

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2024.111393 2024

  19. [19]

    Collet, M

    M. Collet, M. Ouisse, M. Ruzzene, and M.N. Ichchou. Floquet–bloch decomposition for the computation of dispersion of two-dimensional periodic, damped mechanical systems.International Journal of Solids and Structures, 48(20):2837–2848, 2011. 31

    2011

  20. [20]

    Billon, M

    K. Billon, M. Ouisse, M. Collet, and E. Sadoulet-Reboul. Design of smart metamaterials for vibra- tion control: extension of bloch approach to handle finite system boundary conditions. InHealth Monitoring of Structural and Biological Systems XII, volume 10600, pages 384–392. SPIE, 2018. doi: 10.1117/12.2300513

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2300513 2018

  21. [21]

    and Belloni, E

    D’Alessandro, L. and Belloni, E. and Ardito, R. and Corigliano, A. and Braghin, F. Modeling and experimental verification of an ultra-wide bandgap in 3D phononic crystal.Applied Physics Letters, 109(22):221907, 2016. doi: 10.1063/1.4971290

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4971290 2016

  22. [22]

    Demore, G

    F. Demore, G. Rizzi, M. Collet, P. Neff, and A. Madeo. Unfolding engineering metamaterials design: Relaxed micromorphic modeling of large-scale acoustic meta-structures.Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 168:104995, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.jmps.2022.104995

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2022.104995 2022

  23. [23]

    Hermann, K

    S. Hermann, K. Billon, A.M. Parlak, J. Orlowsky, M. Collet, and A. Madeo. Design and ex- perimental validation of a finite-size labyrinthine metamaterial for vibro-acoustics: enabling up- scaling towards large-scale structures.Philosophical Transactions A, 382(2278):20230367, 2024. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2023.0367

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2023.0367 2024

  24. [24]

    Gazzola, S

    C. Gazzola, S. Caverni, and A. Corigliano. From mechanics to acoustics: Critical assessment of a robust metamaterial for acoustic insulation application.Applied Acoustics, 183:108311, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2021.108311

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2021.108311 2021

  25. [25]

    Sal-Anglada, D

    G. Sal-Anglada, D. Yago, J. Cante, J. Oliver, and D. Roca. Sound transmission loss enhancement through triple-peak coupled resonances acoustic metamaterials.International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 266:108951, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2023.108951

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2023.108951 2024

  26. [26]

    Sangiuliano, C

    L. Sangiuliano, C. Claeys, E. Deckers, and W. Desmet. Influence of boundary conditions on the stop band effect in finite locally resonant metamaterial beams.Journal of Sound and Vibration, 473:115225,

  27. [27]

    doi: 10.1016/j.jsv.2020.115225

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2020.115225 2020

  28. [28]

    Ghatak, M

    A. Ghatak, M. Brandenbourger, J. Van Wezel, and C. Coulais. Observation of non-hermitian topology and its bulk–edge correspondence in an active mechanical metamaterial.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(47):29561–29568, 2020. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2010580117

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2010580117 2020

  29. [29]

    R.K. Pal, J. Vila, and M. Ruzzene. Topologically protected edge states in mechanical metamaterials. Advances in Applied Mechanics, 52:147–181, 2019. doi: 10.1016/bs.aams.2019.04.001

    work page doi:10.1016/bs.aams.2019.04.001 2019

  30. [30]

    and Sorokin, S

    Hvatov, A. and Sorokin, S. Free vibrations of finite periodic structures in pass-and stop-bands of the counterpart infinite waveguides.Journal of Sound and Vibration, 347:200–217, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.jsv.2015.03.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2015.03.003 2015

  31. [31]

    Demetriou, G

    P. Demetriou, G. Rizzi, and A. Madeo. Reduced relaxed micromorphic modeling of harmonically loaded metamaterial plates: investigating boundary effects in finite-size structures.Archive of Applied Mechanics, 94(1):81–98, 2024. doi: 10.1007/s00419-023-02509-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00419-023-02509-x 2024

  32. [32]

    Perez Ramirez, F

    L.A. Perez Ramirez, F. Erel-Demore, G. Rizzi, J. Voss, and A. Madeo. Effective surface forces and non-coherent interfaces within the reduced relaxed micromorphic modeling of finite-size me- chanical metamaterials.Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 186:105558, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.jmps.2024.105558

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2024.105558 2024

  33. [33]

    Mercer, T

    C. Mercer, T. Speck, J. Lee, D.S. Balint, and M. Thielen. Effects of geometry and boundary constraint on the stiffness and negative poisson’s ratio behaviour of auxetic metamaterials under quasi-static and impact loading.International Journal of Impact Engineering, 169:104315, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2022.104315

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2022.104315 2022

  34. [34]

    Liang, Y

    K. Liang, Y. Jing, and X. Zhang. Design of broad quasi-zero stiffness platform metamate- rials for vibration isolation.International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 281:109691, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2024.109691

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2024.109691 2024

  35. [35]

    User Guide for Standard Resin

    Anycubic. User Guide for Standard Resin. Anycubic Standard Resin User Manual V1.0-EN 1.pdf,

  36. [36]

    [Online; accessed 13-April-2023]

    2023

  37. [37]

    and Mayboroda, S

    Filoche, M. and Mayboroda, S. Universal mechanism for Anderson and weak localization.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(37):14761–14766, 2012. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1120432109

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1120432109 2012

  38. [38]

    J. Voss, G. Rizzi, P. Neff, and A. Madeo. Modeling a labyrinthine acoustic metamaterial through an inertia-augmented relaxed micromorphic approach.Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids, page 10812865221137286, 2022. doi: 10.1177/10812865221137286

    work page doi:10.1177/10812865221137286 2022

  39. [39]

    Average”) and for the 41 measurement points used in the experiment (“pointwise

    Robert D Blevins.Formulas for dynamics, acoustics and vibration. John Wiley & Sons, 2015. 32 Appendix A Materials and Methods A.1 Printing errors observed on theβspecimens Visible printing errors are observed on theβspecimens. As it can be seen in Figure A.1, the different distances between the lateral bars of both specimens show that the structure has wa...

    2015