Mathematical Modeling of Lattices Structures in Additive Manufacturing CAD Software

The evolution of additive manufacturing (AM) has fundamentally altered the paradigm of structural design, transitioning from the subtractive removal of material to the bottom-up synthesis of complex internal topologies. At the forefront of this shift is the development of architected lattice structures, which leverage periodic or stochastic arrangements of unit cells to achieve mechanical, thermal, and fluidic properties tailored to specific engineering requirements.1 These structures are no longer viewed merely as lightweight fillers but as functional metamaterials where the macroscopic response is a direct consequence of the microscopic topology.3 This report provides an exhaustive investigation into the mathematical modeling of these structures, with a primary focus on the comparative performance of strut-based trusses and triply periodic minimal surfaces (TPMS) across advanced manufacturing modalities including Multi Jet Fusion (MJF), Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), and Stereolithography (SLA).5

Structural Determinacy and the Application of Maxwell’s Criterion

The classification of a lattice structure’s mechanical behavior begins with an analysis of its nodal connectivity and the resulting deformation mechanisms. A central concept in this analysis is Maxwell’s Criterion for Static Determinacy, which allows designers to identify whether a lattice architecture is stretching-dominated or bending-dominated.4 This distinction is critical because it dictates how the material’s effective properties scale with its relative density, a relationship that underpins the design of lightweight aerospace components and energy-absorbing safety systems.7

Mathematical Framework of the Maxwell Metric

The stability and determinacy of a lattice, viewed as a network of struts and joints, are evaluated using the Maxwell stability criterion. For three-dimensional periodic structures where the joints are assumed to be rigid or locked (as is common in fused or sintered AM parts), the criterion provides a metric calculated as follows 7:

The value of determines the structural regime. If , the structure is kinematically indeterminate, possessing internal degrees of freedom that allow members to rotate or bend without significant axial strain. Such structures are classified as bending-dominated. If , the structure is statically determinate or indeterminate (redundant), forcing the internal members to undergo axial tension or compression under load. These are classified as stretching-dominated architectures.7

While Maxwell’s criterion provides a necessary condition for stability, it is often used in the context of periodic structures to predict the scaling of the effective Young’s modulus () relative to the base material’s modulus () and the relative density (). For stretching-dominated structures, the scaling is linear (), whereas for bending-dominated structures, it is quadratic ().2 This means that at low relative densities (e.g., ), a stretching-dominated lattice like the Octet-truss is significantly stiffer than a bending-dominated BCC lattice made from the same material.11

Comparative Mechanics of Stretching and Bending Regimes

Stretching-dominated lattices are characterized by high nodal connectivity, where the alignment of struts with the principal loading directions ensures high specific stiffness and strength. These architectures are ideal for applications where weight reduction is the primary objective without compromising structural integrity.4 However, they often exhibit brittle failure modes because the collapse of a single member can lead to a catastrophic propagation of failure through the statically indeterminate network.11

Bending-dominated structures, such as open-cell foams or specific low-connectivity lattices, are more compliant. Their primary advantage lies in energy absorption.7 Under compressive loading, these structures exhibit a long “plateau” region in the stress-strain curve, where the cells collapse progressively at a nearly constant stress level. This allows for the dissipation of significant energy before the structure enters the densification phase, where the opposing cell walls meet and the stiffness increases steeply.8

Structural Type	Maxwell Metric (M)	Scaling Law (E∗/Es)	Dominant Feature	Typical Geometry
Stretching-Dominated			High Specific Stiffness	Octet-truss, FCC-z
Bending-Dominated			Energy Absorption	BCC, Kelvincell, G-TPMS
Statically Determinate		Varied	Rigid Frame	Simple Cubic (axial)

The transition between these regimes is not always absolute. Recent research into Ti-6Al-4V lattices has demonstrated that bending-dominated structures can exhibit post-yield softening (PYS) traditionally associated with stretching-dominated lattices as their relative density increases. This is attributed to the increasing influence of shear and stretching deformations at the nodes as the strut aspect ratio decreases, a factor that must be accounted for in high-fidelity mathematical models.2

Homogenization Theory and Effective Material Properties

The computational challenge of simulating parts containing thousands of lattice unit cells necessitates the use of homogenization theory. Homogenization allows the lattice structure to be replaced by an equivalent homogeneous continuum, significantly reducing the degrees of freedom in numerical models while preserving the essential mechanical characteristics of the micro-architecture.15

Asymptotic Homogenization Framework

The most rigorous mathematical approach to this problem is the Asymptotic Homogenization Method (AHM). This method relies on the existence of two distinct scales: the macroscopic scale of the component () and the microscopic scale of the unit cell (), where represents the ratio of the unit cell size to the part size.15 The displacement field is expanded as a power series:

By substituting this expansion into the governing equilibrium equations and applying periodic boundary conditions (PBCs) to a Representative Volume Element (RVE), the effective elasticity tensor can be derived.16 This tensor captures the homogenized relationship between macroscopic stress and strain:

For periodic lattices, the stiffness matrix is typically sparse and exhibits symmetries based on the unit cell topology (e.g., cubic symmetry for Octet and Gyroid structures).11 AHM has been shown to result in micropolar elasticity models for certain topologies, where the rotation of nodes provides additional degrees of freedom that influence the macroscopic response.15

Derivation of Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio

The effective Young’s modulus () and Poisson’s ratio () are extracted from the homogenized stiffness matrix. These properties are highly dependent on the “slenderness” of the members—the ratio of length to diameter () for struts or wall thickness for TPMS.17

For open-cell lattices, the effective modulus is generally expressed through the Gibson-Ashby model 2:

where is a constant related to the cell topology and is the scaling exponent (1 for stretching, 2 for bending).2 For closed-cell structures, the relationship becomes more complex, incorporating terms for cell wall bending, edge stretching, and internal gas pressure 2:

where is the fraction of solid material contained in the cell edges.2

Poisson’s ratio is equally sensitive to topology. For the Gyroid TPMS, experiments have shown to be approximately , demonstrating nearly isotropic elastic behavior.10 In contrast, auxetic (negative Poisson’s ratio) lattices are engineered by manipulating the nodal angles to cause the structure to expand laterally when stretched longitudinally.12

 

Lattice Topology	Symmetry Type	Young’s Modulus Scaling	Poisson’s Ratio (ν∗)
Octet-Truss	Cubic		19
Gyroid (TPMS)	Cubic / Isotropic		10
Schwarz P	Cubic	(high density)	Varied 6
Auxetic Chiral	Anisotropic	Varied	Negative 22

The validity of these homogenized properties is contingent upon the number of unit cells. For small arrays, “boundary effects” or “size effects” can lead to significant discrepancies between predicted and measured properties, as the cells at the surface do not benefit from the constraint of neighboring units.17

Triply Periodic Minimal Surfaces (TPMS): Geometry and Modeling

Triply Periodic Minimal Surfaces (TPMS) represent a shift from the discrete “node-and-strut” model to continuous, mathematically defined interfaces. A minimal surface is one where the mean curvature is zero at every point, a condition that occurs when the principal curvatures and are equal and opposite ().6

Mathematical Foundations of TPMS Architectures

TPMS are typically modeled using trigonometric level-set approximations rather than exact Weierstrass parameterizations, allowing for easier integration into computational design workflows. These surfaces are defined by the implicit equation .25

• Gyroid (G): . The Gyroid is highly valued for its bicontinuous channels and lack of internal planes or straight lines, which minimizes stress concentrations.6
• Schwarz P (Primitive): . This surface divides space into two congruent, interwoven volumes and is noted for its high Gaussian curvature and stretching-dominated behavior at high relative densities.6
• Schwarz D (Diamond): . The Diamond TPMS often exhibits the highest stiffness and plateau stress among TPMS types.27
• Lidinoid: .26 The Lidinoid is a genus-3 surface that has recently gained attention for safety-critical energy absorption due to its unique buckling-resistant geometry.14

Comparative Advantages: TPMS vs. Strut-Based Lattices

TPMS structures are inherently more stable during the 3D printing process because they lack the sharp junctions and overhanging struts that characterize truss lattices.23 In terms of mechanical performance, the continuous curvature leads to a more uniform stress distribution, extending the fatigue life of the component.6

Research comparing the Gyroid, Diamond, and Primitive structures indicates that the Gyroid typically offers the most stable deformation under compression, characterized by a continuous hardening response without the stress fluctuations seen in the failure of rigid struts.25 The Diamond structure, however, tends to outperform both in terms of absolute modulus and specific energy absorption (SEA).27

Property	Strut-Based (Octet)	TPMS (Gyroid)	TPMS (Diamond)	TPMS (Lidinoid)
Geometry	Discrete Struts/Nodes	Continuous Surface	Continuous Surface	Continuous Surface
Mean Curvature	Not Defined	Zero	Zero	Zero
Joint Type	Sharp Corners	Smooth Transitions	Smooth Transitions	Smooth Transitions
SEA	High	Excellent	Highest	Very High
Manufacturability	Support Dependent	Self-Supporting	Self-Supporting	Self-Supporting

The Lidinoid structure, in particular, has been identified as a superior substitute for expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam in safety helmets. Its mechanical behavior allows for high energy absorption with lower peak stresses, a critical factor in mitigating traumatic brain injuries.28

Mean Curvature, Printability, and Surface-to-Volume Ratios

The mathematical property of zero mean curvature is not merely an aesthetic or geometric curiosity; it has profound implications for the physical realization of lattice structures through AM processes such as MJF, SLS, and SLA.6

Surface Area-to-Volume (SA/V) Ratio and Its Implications

TPMS structures possess significantly higher SA/V ratios than traditional strut-based lattices.6 This attribute is a double-edged sword:

• Functional Advantages: High SA/V ratios improve heat dissipation and mass transport, making TPMS ideal for heat exchangers and catalytic substrates.6 In biomedical applications, a large surface area promotes cell proliferation and bone ingrowth.1
• Manufacturing Challenges: In powder-bed processes like SLS and MJF, the increased surface area leads to more interaction between the heat source and the surrounding powder. This often results in the partial melting of loose powder, increasing the surface roughness () and causing dimensional deviations from the CAD model.33

Experimental studies on the Schwarz Primitive structure using micro-CT have shown that while increasing cell size leads to thicker walls, the SA/V ratio simultaneously decreases, affecting both the thermal performance and the ease of “depowdering”—the removal of un-sintered material from internal voids.6

Printability Constraints and Geometric Fidelity

The “printability” of a lattice is defined by the minimum feature size (strut diameter or wall thickness) and the maximum overhang angle that the process can sustain without supports.

1. Vat Photopolymerization (SLA): This process offers the highest resolution, making it suitable for intricate TPMS geometries. However, printability is limited by the pixel size and laser spot diameter. Over-polymerization can occur on the shallow slopes inherent in TPMS curvature, where light scattering causes the resin to solidify beyond the intended boundary.6
2. Powder Bed Fusion (SLS/LPBF): These processes are sensitive to the inclination angle of the surface. Jones identified a critical overhang angle of approximately 25°-30° for TPMS structures; below this angle, surface roughness increases dramatically (), and geometric accuracy degrades.35 Furthermore, thermal stress from the melting and solidification cycles can lead to the distortion of thin walls, with a suggested minimum thickness of 0.6 mm for metallic TPMS in PBF-LB/M processes to ensure structural stability.33
3. Multi Jet Fusion (MJF): MJF utilizes a fusing agent and detailing agent to define parts. While it shares many characteristics with SLS, the thermal management of the powder bed allows for the fabrication of complex TPMS without the same level of residual stress, though depowdering remains a primary bottleneck for high-density lattices.5

 

AM Process	Resolution	Printability Factor	Major Limitation
SLA	High (25-100 )	Surface Smoothness	Over-polymerization 6
SLS	Medium (100-200 )	Self-Supporting	Roughness on down-facing surfaces 35
MJF	Medium (100-200 )	Thermal Stability	Internal depowdering 5

The smooth curvature of TPMS helps mitigate the “stair-stepping” effect typical of layer-based manufacturing, especially when the build orientation is optimized to align the surface normals away from the vertical axis.6

Algorithms for Functional Grading and Spatially Varying Density

Functionally Graded Lattice Structures (FGLS) represent a sophisticated design approach where the internal architecture is not uniform but varies spatially to optimize the component’s performance for specific loading or environmental conditions.3

Mathematical Grading Functions

Grading in lattice structures is achieved by manipulating the relative density through two primary variables: the strut/wall thickness () or the unit cell size ().3 The spatial distribution of properties is governed by a gradient function 37:

Where is the property (e.g., Young’s modulus) at position , and is the power-law exponent.

• Linear Grading (): Provides a steady increase in density, often used to transition from a soft interior to a hard exterior.3
• Step-wise Grading: Involves discrete changes between layers of unit cells, which is easier to implement in CAD but can lead to stress concentrations at the interfaces.3
• Continuous Grading: Achieved through implicit modeling (e.g., TPMS), where the iso-surface constant is defined as a field , allowing for smooth, uninterrupted transitions in density.3

Optimization Strategies for Stress Distribution

The objective of functional grading is typically to match the material density to the local stress field derived from initial FEA of a solid part.

• Adaptive Concentration: Material is concentrated in regions of high von Mises stress. This strategy has been shown to improve the crashworthiness of structures by converting catastrophic shear failure into progressive, layer-wise failure.3
• Multi-Morphology Grading: This involves transitioning between different unit cell types—for example, using a stretching-dominated Octet-truss in high-stress regions and a bending-dominated BCC lattice in regions requiring energy absorption.3
• Bayesian Optimization and Machine Learning: Emerging frameworks utilize ML to predict the mechanical response of graded lattices nearly 100x faster than traditional homogenization. This enables “inverse design,” where the required density field is automatically generated to satisfy a specific global stiffness or weight constraint.37

Research into “sosoloid” structures—lattices where struts are selectively reinforced along primary loading paths—has shown that theoretical limits of strength and stiffness can be increased by 20% and 27.5%, respectively, compared to uniform designs.4

Lattice-to-Skin Conformal Mapping and Seamless Integration

A critical hurdle in DfAM (Design for Additive Manufacturing) is the integration of the internal lattice core with the external solid “skin” or shell of a part. Traditional Boolean operations on mesh data (STL) are computationally expensive and often produce “hanging struts”—partially cut beams that are not structurally connected to the skin, creating localized weaknesses.40

Volumetric Distance Fields (VDF) for Conformal Design

Implicit modeling using Volumetric Distance Fields (VDF) offers a robust solution. In this approach, both the skin and the lattice are represented as distance fields , where the value at any point is the distance to the nearest boundary. Seamless integration is achieved by using the min/max Boolean operations on these fields 40:

This ensures that the lattice is naturally “grown” from or clipped by the skin interface. More advanced hybrid methods combine VDFs with parametric solid models to orient the lattice unit cells conformally to the exterior surface, ensuring that the boundary cells are topologically complete.40

Mathematical Mapping Techniques

To ensure that the lattice cells follow the curvature of a freeform shell, several mathematical mapping methods are employed:

1. Isoparametric Transformation: This method, derived from the Finite Element Method, maps a regular “parent” unit cell into an arbitrary hexahedral element. By meshing the design volume with hexahedra and applying this transformation, the lattice cells are warped to fit the volume precisely, maintaining or continuity between adjacent cells.38
2. NURBS Free-Form Deformation (FFD): FFD wraps the lattice structure in a control grid of splines. Manipulating the control points deforms the underlying lattice structure to conform to the design space without losing the internal connectivity of the struts.40
3. Trilinear Interpolation in Isogeometric Analysis: For complex microstructures, trilinear interpolation of the gray-level image or distance field can be used to generate a smooth hyperboloid surface that accurately represents the tissue interface or the skin-lattice boundary.43 This method removes “voxel effects” (stair-stepping) and produces reliable chord-length distributions for transport simulations.43
4. Conformal Parameterization (): Riemann surface theory can be used to represent a 3D surface by its mean curvature () and conformal factor (). Morphing or mapping between surfaces can then be treated as an interpolation in the domain, ensuring that the local details of the lattice are preserved during the deformation process.45

 

Mapping Method	Mathematical Basis	Primary Benefit
Isoparametric	Hexahedral Mapping 38	High boundary integrity
FFD (NURBS)	Control Point Deform 40	Fast for global warping
VDF Implicit	Distance Fields 40	Robust Boolean operations
Trilinear Interp	Voxel Grid Sampling 43	Smooths voxel-based models

The use of these conformal mapping techniques significantly improves the crashworthiness and load-bearing efficiency of parts by aligning the structural “fibers” (struts or surfaces) of the lattice with the exterior geometry of the product.38

Synthesis of Computational Strategies and Future Directions

The investigation into mathematical modeling for advanced lattice structures reveals a landscape defined by the convergence of geometry, mechanics, and manufacturing. While strut-based trusses remain the baseline for many engineering applications due to their intuitive structural logic (Maxwell’s Criterion), TPMS structures are rapidly becoming the preferred choice for multifunctional components where energy absorption, thermal management, and fatigue life are paramount.6

Critical Insights for Multi-Functional Optimization

• Topological Advantage: TPMS surfaces, particularly the Gyroid and Diamond, mitigate the stress concentrations found at the junctions of truss-based lattices. The zero mean curvature ensures a more uniform load distribution across the structure.6
• Homogenization Limits: As relative density increases, the accuracy of beam-theory-based homogenization decreases. Numerical homogenization using PBCs and RVEs is essential for capturing the shear and stretching interactions that dominate at high densities ().2
• Algorithmic Efficiency: The shift toward field-driven design and implicit modeling (VDF) allows for the rapid generation of conformal and functionally graded lattices. The integration of AI/ML reduces the computational overhead of these complex models, enabling real-time design iterations.37
• Manufacturing Fidelity: Printability is not just a function of the minimum wall thickness but of the local curvature and inclination. Mathematical models must incorporate these manufacturing constraints—such as the 25° critical overhang angle—to ensure that the designed performance is realized in the final part.33

The ability to map lattices conformally to a skin ensures that the internal metamaterial is not merely an “infill” but an integral part of the structural system. By leveraging isoparametric transformations and volumetric distance fields, designers can create parts that combine the aesthetic and aerodynamic benefits of freeform shells with the tailored mechanical performance of architected lattices.38

As AM technologies like MJF and SLS continue to mature, the focus will shift toward multi-material and hierarchical lattices, where the material composition and the topology are varied concurrently.3 The mathematical frameworks detailed in this report—from Maxwell’s criterion to conformal mapping—provide the foundational logic required to navigate this increasingly complex design space, enabling the creation of components that were previously unmanufacturable.

Works cited

1. Lattice Structures in Additive Manufacturing for Biomedical Applications: A Systematic Review – PMC, accessed April 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12430481/
2. A Survey of Modeling of Lattice Structures Fabricated by Additive …, accessed April 6, 2026, https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/downloads/5999n710x
3. Additive Manufacturing-Enabled Advanced Design and Process …, accessed April 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11277650/
4. The relationship between Maxwell’s stability criterion and stretch- and bending-dominated structures [12,13]. … – ResearchGate, accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-relationship-between-Maxwells-stability-criterion-and-stretch-and-bending-dominated_fig4_331883432
5. Additive Manufacturing and Influencing Factors of Lattice Structures: A Review – PMC, accessed April 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11989511/
6. An Overview of Additive Manufacturing of Triply Periodic Minimal Surface (TPMS) Structures, accessed April 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12736839/
7. Classification of Cellular Solids (and why it matters) – PADT, accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.padtinc.com/2016/08/29/classification-of-cellular-solids-and-why-it-matters/
8. Optimizing the Thickness of Functionally Graded Lattice Structures for High-Performance Energy Absorption – ORBilu, accessed April 6, 2026, https://orbilu.uni.lu/bitstream/10993/61497/1/_applsci-14-02788.pdf
9. Classification of lattice deformation behavior by Maxwell’s criterion value. – ResearchGate, accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Classification-of-lattice-deformation-behavior-by-Maxwells-criterion-value_tbl2_367070509
10. Poisson’s Ratio and Modulus of the Gyroid Lattice – University of Wisconsin–Madison, accessed April 6, 2026, https://silver.neep.wisc.edu/~lakes/GyroidElasPre.pdf
11. Effective properties of the octet-truss lattice material – CORE, accessed April 6, 2026, https://files01.core.ac.uk/download/pdf/191697235.pdf
12. High Mechanical Performance of Lattice Structures Fabricated by Additive Manufacturing, accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4701/14/10/1165
13. Post-yield softening of bending-dominated metal metamaterials – PMC – NIH, accessed April 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10053022/
14. Additive Manufacturing – Universidad de Zaragoza, accessed April 6, 2026, https://zaguan.unizar.es/record/121287/files/texto_completo.pdf
15. Consistent Asymptotic Homogenization Method for Lattice Structures Based on the Virtual Power Principle – Clemson OPEN, accessed April 6, 2026, https://open.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3552&context=all_theses
16. Modal Response Improvement of Periodic Lattice Materials with a Shear Modulus-Based FE Homogenized Model – PMC, accessed April 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10972043/
17. Evaluation of the Equivalent Mechanical Properties of Lattice Structures Based on the Finite Element Method – PMC, accessed April 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9104921/
18. A computational method for determining the linear elastic properties of 2D aperiodic lattice structures, accessed April 6, 2026, https://oro.open.ac.uk/87359/8/87359.pdf
19. Micromechanical Model of an Octet-Truss Lattice Cell – COMSOL, accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.comsol.com/model/download/1418221/models.sme.micromechanical_model_of_an_octet_truss_lattice_cell.pdf
20. A Generalized Strain Energy-Based Homogenization Method for 2-D and 3-D Cellular Materials with and without Periodicity Constraints – MDPI, accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/13/10/1870
21. Multiscale topology optimization of functionally graded lattice structures based on physics-augmented neural network material models – arXiv, accessed April 6, 2026, https://arxiv.org/html/2408.00510v1
22. The Mechanical Properties of Functionally Graded Lattice Structures Derived Using Computer-Aided Design for Additive Manufacturing – MDPI, accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/13/21/11667
23. Orientation driven design and mechanical optimization of gyroid TPMS lattice structures, accessed April 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12864783/
24. Triply Periodic Minimal Surfaces Thermal Hydraulic Effects – Encyclopedia.pub, accessed April 6, 2026, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/39188
25. Topological and Mechanical Properties of Different Lattice Structures Based on Additive Manufacturing – PMC, accessed April 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9324303/
26. What equations are used to create the TPMS types? – nTop Support, accessed April 6, 2026, https://support.ntop.com/hc/en-us/articles/360053267814-What-equations-are-used-to-create-the-TPMS-types
27. Compression Performance and Failure Analysis of 3D-Printed Carbon Fiber/PLA Composite TPMS Lattice Structures – MDPI, accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/14/21/4595
28. Characterization of additively manufactured triply periodic minimal surface structures under compressive loading | Request PDF – ResearchGate, accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346707876_Characterization_of_additively_manufactured_triply_periodic_minimal_surface_structures_under_compressive_loading
29. Mechanical and shape memory properties of triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS) NiTi structures fabricated by selective laser melting – OAText, accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.oatext.com/mechanical-and-shape-memory-properties-of-triply-periodic-minimal-surface-tpms-niti-structures-fabricated-by-selective-laser-melting.php
30. Deformations of the gyroid and Lidinoid minimal surfaces – ResearchGate, accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265357881_Deformations_of_the_gyroid_and_Lidinoid_minimal_surfaces
31. Structural optimization, compressive strength analysis, and application exploration of triply periodic minimal surfaces (TPMS) in interior design – PMC, accessed April 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11958741/
32. Mechanical Characterization of TPMS Structures Fabricated via SLA 3D Printing using Tough Resin: Influence of Geometry on Performance – Sciforum, accessed April 6, 2026, https://sciforum.net/paper/view/20964
33. Achieving Triply Periodic Minimal Surface Thin-Walled Structures by Micro Laser Powder Bed Fusion Process – MDPI, accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2072-666X/12/6/705
34. Regression Analysis of Triply Periodic Minimal Surface (TPMS) Models to Achieve Multi-Objective Optimization – MDPI, accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/9/5008
35. (PDF) Design guidelines for laser powder bed fusion of triply periodic minimal surface structures for applications in smart reactors – ResearchGate, accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399932476_Design_guidelines_for_laser_powder_bed_fusion_of_triply_periodic_minimal_surface_structures_for_applications_in_smart_reactors
36. Comparative Torsional Properties via Numerical Simulation of Triply Periodic Minimal Surfaces (TPMS): Diamond, Gyroid and Primitive Structures – MDPI, accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/18/6/736
37. Computational Design Strategies and Software for Lattice Structures and Functionally Graded Materials – MDPI, accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2504-477X/10/1/32
38. 1.Development of conformal shell lattices via laser powder bed fusion and unraveling their mechanical responses via modelling an – PolyU Institutional Research Archive, accessed April 6, 2026, http://ira.lib.polyu.edu.hk/bitstream/10397/101878/1/Fu_Development_Conformal_Shell.pdf
39. Machine learning-enhanced analysis of triply periodic minimal surface structures integrating topological features and hypergravity effects – AIP Publishing, accessed April 6, 2026, https://pubs.aip.org/meg/article/1/1/013903/3375808/Machine-learning-enhanced-analysis-of-triply
40. Design of conformal lattice structures using the volumetric distance …, accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339767522_Design_of_conformal_lattice_structures_using_the_volumetric_distance_field_based_on_parametric_solid_models
41. Guide to Conformal Latticing – nTop Support, accessed April 6, 2026, https://support.ntop.com/hc/en-us/articles/29651196870035-Guide-to-Conformal-Latticing
42. [2105.04017] Infill topology and shape optimisation of lattice-skin structures – arXiv, accessed April 6, 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.04017
43. Marching cube algorithm: review and trilinear interpolation adaptation for image-based dosimetric models – ResearchGate, accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10695806_Marching_cube_algorithm_review_and_trilinear_interpolation_adaptation_for_image-based_dosimetric_models
44. A FAST MORPHING-BASED INTERPOLATION FOR MEDICAL IMAGES: APPLICATION TO CONFORMAL RADIOTHERAPY – Semantic Scholar, accessed April 6, 2026, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0c7a/c6e420225c2e03c8515ee57973a165268189.pdf
45. Conformal-Based Surface Morphing and Multi-Scale Representation – MDPI, accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1680/3/2/222
46. Controllable Conformal Maps for Shape Deformation and Interpolation, accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.eng.biu.ac.il/~weberof/Publications/Conformal/Controllable_Conformal_Maps_for_Shape_Deformation_and_Interpolation.pdf
47. Prediction of Cellular Structure Mechanical Properties with the Geometry of Triply Periodic Minimal Surfaces (TPMS) – PMC, accessed April 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10398688/