## 3 Results and Discussion
### Simulation Results along a Specific Path  
The exact position of the specific paths can be seen in Figure 13. In the research, the results alongside the two paths during the numerical simulation were investigated. These paths were chosen in the position that included all layers of the model.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Number of Cycles** & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** \\ \hline Elastic stiffness in the geometrical & & & & & \\ simplified model (MPa) & 2818.2 & 2943.9 & 2989.1 & 3018.2 & 3039.8 \\ Elastic stiffness in the & & & & & \\ layer-by-layer model (MPa) & 2732.8 & 2936.8 & 3005.0 & 3036.5 & 3057.5 \\ Elastic stiffness in the experiment [35] (MPa) & 2800 & 2970 & 2998 & 3005 & 3015 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Summary of the ES of the geometrical simplified model changes and the layer model changes in the numerical simulation, induced by cyclic compressive loading.  
Figure 12: Compression force–displacement diagram and comparison between numerical simulation results of the layered and simplified geometrical models.  
Figure 14 shows the Mises stress alongside Paths 1 and 2 when each cycle is finished. As can be seen, at the end of each cycle, the stress values increase from top to bottom of the model alongside the paths on the primitive layers, and then start to decrease. The maximum stress is almost at the middle layers of Paths 1 and 2.  
Figure 15 shows the amount of the elastic strain (maximum principle) at the end of each cycle, alongside Paths 1 and 2. The results indicate that the behavior of the model is approximately similar during both paths. As seen in Figure 15, alongside the paths, the maximum elastic strain value obtained is about 0.011, and the elastic strain value alongside the paths first increases and then starts to decrease.  
Figure 16 shows the equivalent plastic strain in Path 1, specified in Figure 13. As is evident from Figure 16, the equivalent plastic strain values increase from top to bottom of the model alongside Path 1. The equivalent plastic strain has its highest value in the last layers and has the lowest value in the initial layers.  
Figure 14: Mises stress (MPa)–distance diagram in specific paths at the end of each cycle. (**a**) Path 1 and (**b**) Path 2.  
Figure 13: The paths examined in this simulation: (**a**) Path 1 and (**b**) Path 2.  
Figure 16: Equivalent plastic strain diagram in Path 1 in **(a)** Cycle 1, **(b)** Cycle 2, **(c)** Cycle 3, **(d)** Cycle 4, and **(e)** Cycle 5.  
Figure 15: Elastic strain (maximum principle)–distance diagram in specific paths at the end of each cycle. (a) Path 1 and **(b)** Path 2.  
Figure 17 shows the equivalent plastic strain in Path 2, specified in Figure 13. As seen in Figure 17, the variation in the equivalent plastic strain values is smaller at Path 2 compared with Path 1, but both paths have almost identical ways of behaving. The equivalent plastic strain has its highest value in the last layers and has the lowest value in the initial layers.  
Figure 18 shows the elastic strain obtained in each region of the model after five cycles of cyclic compressive loading. As can be seen, the maximum elastic strain occurs between the infill lines layers.  
Figure 17: Equivalent plastic strain diagram in Path 2 in (**a**) Cycle 1, (**b**) Cycle 2, (**c**) Cycle 3, (**d**) Cycle 4, and (**e**) Cycle 5.