Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Review highlights experimental progress of seismic metamaterials, demonstrating their effectiveness in wave control for earthquake resistance.
Seismic metamaterials (SMs) have emerged as a novel wave-control strategy for earthquake-resistant engineering, offering the potential to manipulate seismic waves via artificially designed periodic/resonant structures. Field and laboratory experiments are critical to bridge theoretical predictions and engineering practice, yet a systematic synthesis focusing on experimental progress remains lacking. This review systematically classifies SMs into buried (BSMs), above-surface (ASMs), and partially embedded (PESMs) configurations, summarizing their structural designs, attenuation mechanisms, experimental performance, and key limitations. Results show that SMs can achieve >70% attenuation in the 0–50 Hz seismic band, with buried periodic barriers reaching 99.7% energy blocking and forest-like ASMs achieving 93–99% Rayleigh wave reduction. PESMs exhibit superior adaptability to shallow soils, with bandgaps concentrated in 1.5–14.5 Hz (building-sensitive range). Current experiments have advanced from single mechanisms to multi-mechanism synergy and from specialized materials to conventional concrete/steel. However, critical gaps remain: scaling-induced deviations, poor complex-geology adaptability, lack of long-term durability, and insufficient multi-waveform control. Finally, we propose a 3–10-year engineering roadmap and outline future directions: multi-waveform regulation, soil–metamaterial dynamic matching, durability design, and full-scale intelligent upgrades. This work aims to provide a critical experimental reference for the practical deployment of SMs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: