It is important to note that while the 16-unit case has the lowest stress intensity, it also has the lowest energy growth rate, which can make it less suitable for applications where impact resistance is a primary concern . The 8-unit case presents a tradeoff in this situation, as while it has the highest resistance to impact, it also deforms in a manner that could potentially lead to failure. When considering the other cases, the 6-unit case initially presents the best balance of resistance to impact and stability, making it the optimal choice in terms of these factors. It is important to keep in mind that this data is over a short period, so longer simulations would be required for long-term stability. On the other hand, it is important to note that the 16-unit case presents a different tradeoff. While it may not have the optimal force and energy absorption compared to the 6-unit case, the fact that it does not undergo excessive deformation under impact (see Fig. ) and returns to its original shape is a valuable attribute for certain applications. This is particularly important for materials that are used in seismic metamaterials for earthquakes, as they require a high level of dimensional stability and endurance under loads over time and if the 6-unit case is not presenting this in a short period, it is not as optimal as possible. Notably, this would mean that overall, the 16-unit case has shown a greater aptitude for earthquake resistance when compared with the control and 6-unit cases. Considering the lattice structure of the optimal 16-unit ISMER configuration, we conducted frequency attenuation. During earthquakes and intense magnitude seismic activity, there exists a crucial function of classical mechanics through Oscillatory motion. Specifically, the ability of the ISMER lattice to retain its configuration while also undergoing slight deformations under a 2 Hz and 8 Hz eigenfrequency is shown in Fig. . In Fig. we observe non-critical displacement at the 8 Hz frequency, corresponding to smaller magnitude earthquakes (<4-5 on the Richter Scale). Meanwhile, in Fig. , we observe a similar trend across the 2 Hz frequency, which often corresponds to higher magnitude earthquakes (>6 on the Richter Scale). Specifically, in the 2 Hz case, we observe a larger amount of visible deformation in the lattice structure; we observe that its structure is still intact (has not failed) after over 50 trials of deformation at the 2 Hz frequency. The solution map details the displacement intensity, through which we see ISMER's ability to resist brittle failure while also maintaining minimal displacement. This is all while being able to attenuate the frequency of the seismic activity. This lattice structure would be the practical application of the singular lattice structure shown previously. From both Fig. & 9b, we observe an interesting trend which will later be upheld in terms of general strength in our experiment. Originally, the hourglass auxetic structure showcases a seismic-load resistance of ~4.5 magnitude on the Richter scale. Afterward, there is a subtly increase in the magnitude of resistance in Fig. before the unit-cell converges upon itself and leads to an eventual "failure case" at the 8-unit cell mark. This represents the 2.5 magnitude on the Richter Scale, as the 8-unit case is again the vertical support that was expected to struggle under the shear load of earthquakes. The 4-unit case seems to be a peak in terms of the hourglass auxetic structure, whilst in earlier sections, it was shown that the 6unit case may have been the most dampening efficient. This can be attributed to the shear load at different frequencies, which then corresponds to differing magnitudes. Afterward, we see a characteristic trend as the hourglass structures consistently improve in their magnitude of resistance.