Materials and Design 183 (2019) 108137

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes

SLM lattice structures: Properties, performance, applications and

challenges
Tobias Maconachie a, b, Martin Leary a, b, c, *, Bill Lozanovski a, c, Xuezhe Zhang a, Ma Qian a,
Omar Faruque b, d, Milan Brandt a, c
a
RMIT Centre for Additive Manufacture, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
b
ARC Training Centre for Lightweight Automotive Structures (ATLAS), Australian Research Council Grant IC160100032, Australia
c
ARC Training Centre in Additive Biomanufacturing, Australia
d
Ford Motor Company, Research Innovation Centre (RIC), Dearborn, MI, USA

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

A review of the design, fabrication

and mechanical performance of Se-
lective Laser Melting (SLM) lattice
structures.

Reported data on the mechanical
performance and properties of a
broad range of SLM lattice structures
is compiled.

Meta-analysis of reported data allows
insights into the applicability of the
Gibson-Ashby model to SLM lattice
structures.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Additive manufacturing (AM), particularly Selective Laser Melting (SLM) has enabled development of
Received 26 April 2019 lattice structures with unique properties. Through control of various parameters lattice structures can
Received in revised form produce unique mechanical, electrical, thermal and acoustic properties, and have received much research
12 August 2019
attention. Despite the increasing volume of published data on the mechanical response of specific SLM
Accepted 18 August 2019
Available online 19 August 2019
lattice structures, there exists no overarching analysis. This work addresses this identified deficiency by
providing a comprehensive summary of the experimental data reported on the mechanical response of
SLM lattice structures. The design, fabrication and performance of SLM lattice structures are reviewed
Keywords:
Additive manufacturing
and the quality of data reported is analysed to inform best-practice for future studies. This compre-
SLM hensive data summary enables meta-analysis of the reported mechanical performance of SLM lattice
Selective laser melting structures, providing insight into the bounds of their technical capabilities. Correlations were identified
Lattice structures between the relative density and mechanical properties of many unit cell topologies consistent with the
DFAM predictions of the Gibson-Ashby model, indicating its usefulness in describing and predicting the
Mechanical properties behaviour of SLM lattice structures. This review provides designers with a compiled resource of exper-
imental data and design for AM tools to inform future design applications of SLM lattice structures and
Data availability statement: facilitates their further commercial adoption.
The raw/processed data required to © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
reproduce these findings cannot be shared at creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
this time due to technical or time limitations.

* Corresponding author at: RMIT Centre for Additive Manufacture, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
E-mail address: martin.leary@rmit.edu.au (M. Leary).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108137
0264-1275/© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
2 T. Maconachie et al. / Materials and Design 183 (2019) 108137

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Lattice structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Strut-based lattice structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Triply periodic minimal surface lattice structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Shell lattice structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. The SLM process for lattice structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Processing parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Applications of SLM lattice structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Biomedical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Aerospace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Mechanical properties of SLM lattice structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Compressive performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Fatigue performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Effects of processing parameters on SLM lattice structure performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Microstructure of SLM components and effect of heat treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Effect of heat treatment on microstructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Potential geometric defects of SLM lattice structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Manufacturability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Dimensional accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.3. Surface roughness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.4. Effects of defects on the mechanical performance of SLM lattice structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Numerical modelling of SLM lattice structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. The Gibson-Ashby model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Gibson-Ashby model in the literature of SLM lattice structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Compressive experimental data for SLM lattice structures reported in the literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.3. Comparison of reported experimental data with predictions of the Gibson-Ashby model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.4. Regression analysis of reported experimental data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Reporting of experimental data on SLM lattice structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. Outstanding challenges and future directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.1. Accounting for manufacturing defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.2. Efficient and precise predictive models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.3. Functionally-graded and locally tuned lattice structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.4. Fatigue behaviour of SLM lattice structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.5. Future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
CRediT authorship contribution statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1. Introduction structures can be used to reduce the stiffness of metallic medical

implants to be closer to that of bone [5] thereby avoiding stress
Additive manufacturing (AM) enables the fabrication of strong, shielding while allowing fluid flow due to their porosity [12] with a
lightweight structures with geometry that is unachievable by large surface area-to-volume ratio to facilitate osseointegration
traditional manufacturing methods, including complex lattice [13]. The high strength-to-weight ratio and thermal conduction
structures [1]. Lattice structures are topologically ordered, three- properties of lattice structures make them attractive for aerospace
dimensional open-celled structures composed of one or more applications [14]. The reliable control of the collapse response of
repeating unit cells [2,3]. These cells are defined by the dimensions lattice structures due to their structural uniformity [15] mean they
and connectivity of their constituent strut elements, which are may provide a technical advantage for energy-absorption when
connected at specific nodes. At the cellular level, lattice structures compared with alternative metallic foams [16].
can be considered to be structures as far as features and properties Selective Laser Melting (SLM) is a Powder Bed Fusion (PBF) form
are concerned, but behave like homogenised meta-materials when of AM whereby metallic components are fabricated from CAD data by
considered at the overall structural level [4]. the layer-wise fusion of metallic powders using a laser energy source
By tuning lattice structural parameters, such as cell topology [17]. For each layer, metallic powder is distributed across the previ-
(connectivity) or geometry (cell size and strut dimensions), the ous layer, which is then selectively scanned by the laser to locally fuse
physical response of these structures can be significantly altered to the powder. PBF is the preferred technique for metallic lattice
exhibit properties unachievable by their parent materials [5], manufacture as alternative metallic AM methods such as direct metal
including acoustic [6], dielectric [7] and mechanical [8] properties. deposition do not provide sufficient geometric accuracy [2].
AM lattice structures have been found to significantly outperform Many studies have reported on the mechanical performance of
cellular structures produced by alternative manufacturing methods particular SLM lattice structures. However, no overarching analysis
with equivalent porosity [9], particularly due to the greater geo- of their broader performance capabilities exists. To overcome this
metric control and predictability provided by AM fabrication [2]. identified deficit, this review provides a comprehensive summary of
The commercial usefulness of these lattice structures has the experimental literature concerning SLM lattice structures and
motivated much research, particularly for biomedical [10] and provides a meta-analysis of the associated mechanical performance.
aerospace [11] applications. For biomedical applications lattice The different means of lattice structure design, the details of the SLM
 T. Maconachie et al. / Materials and Design 183 (2019) 108137
process for their fabrication and specific applications are detailed.
The mechanical behaviour of SLM lattice structures is described, and
the microstructure and potential geometric defects resulting from
the fabrication process and their effects on performance are
explored. Different means of predicting the behaviour of SLM lattice
structures, including numerical modelling and the Gibson-Ashby
model are discussed. Experimental data on the performance of
SLM lattice structures was collected from the literature and a meta-
analysis of this data with comparison to predictions of the Gibson-
Ashby model is presented. The quality of data reported regarding
SLM lattice structures is analysed. Finally, the technical and eco-
nomic challenges facing the further implementation of SLM lattice
structures are presented. This research provides a comprehensive
Design for AM (DFAM) resource for engineers seeking to design SLM
lattice structures for technical applications as well as a roadmap for
further commercially relevant research activities.
2. Lattice structures
Natural cellular materials such as wood, cork and bone have
been utilised for centuries, and their structure is mimicked in
modern technical materials such as manufactured honeycombs and
foams [18]. Cellular structures are an attractive option for many
design applications, particularly light-weighting, due to the high
specific strength and stiffness provided by their porous structure
[19]. The deformation behaviour of cellular structures also means
they are useful for energy absorption applications [20]. There are
many different types of manufactured cellular structures, and a
variety of means of fabricating them.
Metallic foams are a form of cellular structure that are manu-
factured by injecting gas or mixing a foaming agent into molten
metal [21] and many studies have investigated their use for technical
applications such as energy absorption [22e24] and light-weighting
[25e27]. While metallic foams are relatively inexpensive to manu-
facture, they consist of a stochastic arrangement of open or closed
cells rather than a prescribed cellular arrangement. This stochastic
structure results in an inconsistent mechanical response that is un-
desirable as it necessitates overly conservative design [28].
Lattice structures are another type of cellular material that is
differentiated from foams by the regular repeating structure of
their unit cells [29]. Gibson defines cellular materials as consisting
of “an interconnected network of struts or plates” [30]. Ashby
further states that lattice structures, a form of cellular material,
differ from large scale engineered structures such as trusses or
frames in terms of their scale e the unit cells of a lattice structure
have a millimetre or micrometre scale [31]. This means that while
the unit cells of lattice structures can be analysed as space frames
using classical mechanics, a lattice structure should be considered a
material with its own mechanical properties, which allows direct
comparison between the properties of a lattice structure and those
of its parent material.
Lattice structures may be 2.5D1 [32] or 3D and can be fabricated
by a variety of means, including investment casting [33], a combi-
nation of extrusion and electro discharge machining [34], or
various composite fabrication methods including textile weaving
[35], interlacing, interlocking, hot-press [36] or filament winding
[37]. However, since the proliferation of AM in the late 1990s and
early 2000s [38], much research attention has been paid to the AM
fabrication of lattice structures [39]. The mechanical properties of
SLM lattice structures were first reported in 2005 [40], and since,
due to the significant advantages of SLM for the fabrication of
metallic lattice structures [41], many studies have reported on the
1
2.5D lattice structures consist of a two-dimensional shape extruded into the
third dimension.
3
properties of SLM lattice structures.
Lattice structures can generally be categorised based on their
mechanical response as being either bending-dominated or
stretch-dominated. Bending-dominated structures experience
bending moments within their structure and so are compliant,
whereas stretch-dominated structures experience axial loads,
meaning they are more stiff and strong than bending-dominated
structures [12]. A lattice structure’s cell topology defines whether
it will be bending or stretch-dominated. A broad range of cell to-
pologies have been investigated in the literature [3] which here are
further categorised as being either strut-based or triply periodic
minimal surfaces (TPMS).
2.1. Strut-based lattice structures
The most common strut-based cell topologies that have been
investigated are body-centred cubic (BCC) and face-centred-cubic
(FCC), or variations of these, such as the inclusion of z-struts
(BCCZ and FCCZ) (Fig. 1) [15], which are named after analogous
crystalline structures. Other strut-based topologies also exist, such
as the cubic, octet-truss and diamond [4].
These strut-based topologies are often chosen for their
simplicity of design [42], but strut-based topologies have also been
generated from topological optimisation to maximise the efficiency
of material distribution within the lattice structure and fully
embrace the opportunities presented by AM [42,43] (Fig. 2).
Strut-based topologies can be characterised by their Maxwell
number, M, which is dependent on the number of struts, s, and
nodes, n (Eq. (1)) [44].
M ¼ s  3n þ 6 (1)
If M < 0, there are too few struts to equilibrate external forces
without equilibrating moments induced at the nodes, causing bending
stresses to develop in struts and leading to bending-dominated
behaviour. Whereas if M  0, external loads are equilibrated by axial
tension and compression in struts meaning that no bending occurs at
nodes, making these structures stretch-dominated [45]. Due to these
phenomena, stretch-dominated structures are stiff and strong, espe-
cially considering their mass, whereas bending-dominated structures
are compliant and deform more consistently [31].
2.2. Triply periodic minimal surface lattice structures
Lattice structures with unit cells based on triply periodic minimal
surfaces (TPMS) such as the Schoen gyroid, Schwartz diamond and
Neovius (Fig. 3) have also been investigated. These topologies are
generated using mathematical formulae that define the U ¼ 0 iso-
surface boundary between solid and void sections of the structure
(Table 1) [46]. Various parameters such as periodicity and relative
density can be altered to tune their mechanical performance [47].
Periodicities are defined by the k values (kx, ky, kz) which are
calculated using Eq. (2), where ni is the number of cell repetitions in
the x, y or z directions and Li is the absolute size of the structure in
that direction. The variable t can be used to alter relative density.
ni
ki ¼ 2p ðwithi ¼ x; y; zÞ (2)
Li
TPMS lattice structures have potential advantages over strut-
based topologies in terms of manufacturability and bone fixation.
SLM constraints on inclination angle for strut-based lattice struc-
tures may be avoided as the inclination angle of cell walls contin-
uously varies in TPMS structures, meaning previous layers support
subsequent layers, improving manufacturability [47]. Studies also
suggest the curvature of implant surfaces plays a critical role in
promoting bone ingrowth [48], and due to both their geometric
4 T. Maconachie et al. / Materials and Design 183 (2019) 108137
Fig. 1. Strut-based lattice structures: BCC (A), BCCZ (B), FCC (C), FCCZ (D), cubic (F), Octet-truss (G), and diamond (H).
similarity to natural trabecular bone as well as the three-
dimensional curvature of their surfaces, TPMS lattice structures
potentially offer improved osseo-fixation over strut-based lattice
structures [5]. Maskery et al. also found that gyroids have almost
three times greater specific energy absorption (SEA) than BCC
structures with similar porosity [15]. However, these potential
advantages have not been conclusively demonstrated, and the
comparative performance of strut-based and TPMS lattice struc-
tures remains an area for further research.
2.3. Shell lattice structures
AM has enabled the design and manufacture of cellular struc-
tures whose unit cells are composed of plates rather than struts
[49]. These lattice structures have been described as TPMS-like
(though their surfaces do not necessarily have zero mean curva-
ture) and are referred to as “shell lattices” (Fig. 4) [50]. Closed-cell
plate-based lattice materials have been shown to have superior
Fig. 2. Topologically optimised strut-based unit cells [42].
Strut connectivity is iteratively optimised based on node locations.
elastic properties than strut-based open-cell structures with
similar densities [51], though manufacture of these structures re-
mains problematic for powder-based AM systems due to the
requirement of powder removal [50]. However, open-celled plate-
based lattice structures have been designed, manufactured and
tested, and have been shown to exhibit superior strength and
stiffness with very low densities [52].
3. The SLM process for lattice structures
SLM was developed by the Fraunhofer Institute for Laser Tech-
nology, Germany in the 1990s [53] and has since been adopted in
various industries due to its ability to produce fully functional and
near fully dense components directly from metals without the use
of intermediate binders or additional processing techniques [54].
During the SLM process, a layer of metallic powder is spread across
the surface of a build platen. A galvanometer directs a laser beam
across this surface to melt powder where necessary, fusing it with
 T. Maconachie et al. / Materials and Design 183 (2019) 108137
Fig. 3. Triply periodic minimal surface unit cells: Schoen gyroid (A), Schwarz diamond (B) and Neovius (C).
Table 1
Example TPMS formulae for the generation of Schoen gyroids, Schwartz diamonds
and Neovius topologies.
Topology Isosurface formula
Schoen UG ¼ cos (kxx) sin (kyy) þ cos (kyy) sin (kzz) þ
gyroid cos (kzz) sin (kxx)  t
Schwartz UD ¼ sin (kxx) sin (kyy) sin (kzz) þ sin (kxx) cos (kyy) cos (kzz)
diamond þ cos (kxx) sin (kyy) cos (kzz) þ cos (kxx) cos (kyy) sin (kzz)  t
Neovius UN ¼ 3[cos(x) þ cos (y) þ cos (z)] þ 4 cos (x) cos (y) cos (z)
the layer below. The platen is then lowered, and this process is
repeated until fabrication is complete [55].
Advantages of SLM include the ability to produce near fully-
dense, complex components with high resolution [56] and supe-
rior properties compared with those produced by traditional
methods such as casting [57]. However, certain disadvantages also
exist such as the minimum feature size that is constrained by the
laser beam spot size [58], microstructural and metallurgical defects
inherited from the fabrication process [59] that can be difficult to
evaluate [60], and the potential for thermal distortion of compo-
nents due to residual stresses resulting from rapid cooling during
fabrication [61]. The requirements for powder removal are another
limitation of the SLM process [62] as enclosed internal voids cannot
be produced due to powder entrapment. There is also limited data
available on the performance of SLM-produced materials [63],
which in part motivates this study.
3.1. Processing parameters
SLM processing parameters such as: laser parameters including
speed power and beam size; powder properties, usually repre-
sented by mean particle size; and, layer thickness significantly
affect manufacturing outcomes [64]. Optimisation of processing
parameters is key to improving manufacturing outcomes of the
SLM process [65].
Appropriate processing parameters are highly dependent on the
machine and material used, and a variety of parameters are
Fig. 4. Sell lattice unit cells generated by placing plates on the closest-packed planes of cubic crystals combining simple cubic (SC), BCC and FCC: SC-BCC (A), SC-BCC-FCC (B) and SC-
FCC (C) [51].
5
reported in the published literature [66]. The SLM processing pa-
rameters used in published works reviewed in this research are
presented in Table 2.
There are inconsistencies in which processing parameters were
reported in the literature. Some parameters, such as laser power
were regularly reported (83%), though power used for both borders
and hatching was not always clearly differentiated. Laser scan
speed was the least commonly reported parameter (56%). For
repeatability of experimental results data should be reported
wherever possible.
4. Applications of SLM lattice structures
Rapid advances have led to interest in AM for a broad range of
applications including personal protective equipment [78], sports
equipment [79] and even for the future exploration of Mars [80].
Two industries which have taken particular interest in AM lattice
structures are the biomedical and aerospace industries [81].
4.1. Biomedical
AM lattice structures are used in the biomedical industry for
medical implants [56], the global market for which is expected to
grow to $116 billion by 2022 [82]. The ability to produce high-
quality metallic components that conform to complex, patient-
specific surfaces makes SLM perfect for the fabrication of medical
implants, and the ability to produce metallic components with
stiffness closer to that of bone makes AM lattice structures perfect
for biomedical applications [5]. These structures can be designed to
produce optimal osseointegration and have been shown to sustain
excellent bone in-growth and achieve high performance in terms of
implant fixation [74].
Beyond the manufacture of metallic implants, potential innova-
tive design applications of AM lattice structures have been sug-
gested, such as Burton et al. who have proposed an implant which
incorporates a reservoir that locally releases a therapeutic drug to
achieve antimicrobial functionality by incorporating a reservoir [83].
6 T. Maconachie et al. / Materials and Design 183 (2019) 108137

Table 2
SLM processing parameters for reported data evaluated in this research. Dash (e) indicates an absence of data.

Reference Machine Manufacturer Material Spot size Border power Hatch power Scan speed Hatch spacing Layer thickness Mean powder
(mm) (W)a (W) (mm/s) (mm) (mm) size (mm)

[67] ProX DMP 300 3D Systems Ti-6Al-4V e e e e e e 8.64

[68] ProX-300 3D Systems SS 630 (17- 70 170 170 1600 0.05 40 e
4PH)
[11] Concept X-line Concept Laser AlSi10Mg e e 370 1500 0.19 30 31
1000R Company
[69] M2 Cusing® Concept Laser Ti-6Al-4V 60 150 150 1750 0.075 20 20e50
Company
[70] EOSINT-M270 EOS Ti-6Al-4V 100 58.5 117 225 0.18 30 45
[16] M280 EOS 316L SS 100 e e e e e 20e40
[71] DMLSEOSINT- EOS Ti-6Al-4V 100 170 170 1250 0.06 30 20
M270
[72] M 270 EOS Ti-6Al-4V 100 170 170 1250 0.1 30 29
[72] M 270 EOS Ti-6Al-4V 10 117 117 225 0.18 30 e
[73] M280 EOS AlSi10Mg e 370 370 1500 0.13 30 30
[64] Realizer II MCP 316L SS 90 80e160 80e160 e e e 16e38
[74] MCP Realizer 2, MCP Ti-6Al-4V 54 80 80 e e 50 45
250 SLM
[47] Realizer SLM MCP 316L SS 40 95 95 e 0.075 75 45
Workstation
[5] AM250 Renishaw AlSi10Mg 80 200 200 e 0.13 25 e
[15] AM250 Renishaw Ti-6Al-4V e 100 200 e 0.065 30 e
[75] AM250 Renishaw AlSi10Mg 70 e e e e 25 e
[76] SLM 125 SLM Solutions CP-Ti e 100 100 385 0.12 e 36.6
[77] SLM250HL SLM Solutions Ti-6Al-4V e 100 100 375 0.12 30 40
Number reported 12 14 15 10 13 14 13
Percentage reported (%) 67 78 83 56 72 78 72
a
Where no distinction was reported between border and hatch power, the same value was assumed to be reported for both.

4.2. Aerospace
The light-weighting potential of AM lattice structures, such as
the replacement of internal solid volumes with lattice structures
with a similar strength [55], means AM is of great interest to the
aerospace industry [84]. Other properties of AM lattice structures,
such as the ability to produce conformal cooling channels also
makes them an attractive option for aerospace applications [14].
Zhou et al. have developed a lightweight phase-change thermal
controller based on lattice cells [85]. Thermal controllers are an
important component to manage the temperature of various elec-
tronics in spacecraft, yet traditional designs considerably add to the
spacecraft’s weight. Using an SLM-fabricated lattice sandwich
structure Zhou et al. were able to produce a thermal controller with
50% increased thermal capacity compared to traditional alterna-
tives with similar mass.
orientation of cells with respect to loading direction also signifi-
cantly affects the mechanical response of anisotropic lattice struc-
tures [2].
Most mechanical testing of SLM lattice structures is performed
in compression due to its greater simplicity than testing in tension.
This is largely because special design of the sample-test rig inter-
face is required for tensile testing, whereas compressive tests can
be more simply performed by crushing a lattice between plates. For
example, when testing lattice structures in tension, Alsalla et al.
found that lattice structures failed near the interface between the
lattice structure and test apparatus attachment, suggesting that a
critical stress concentration exists at the lattice interface [92]. The
tensile behaviour of lattice structures remains an area requiring
further research.
5.1. Compressive performance

5. Mechanical properties of SLM lattice structures
Various terms such as mechanical properties, elastic modulus
and yield strength are applied to lattice structures, though they
have a slightly different meaning than when applied to continuous
bulk materials [2]. When referring to lattice structures, these
properties are the “apparent macroscopic properties of structures
that converge to certain values when the number of the unit cells is
large enough” [2]. Due to the geometric freedom afforded by AM,
lattice structures can achieve functional or mechanical properties
that cannot be achieved by bulk materials [86] such as auxetic
structures with negative Poisson’s ratio [87], negative stiffness [88],
negative compressibility [89], negative thermal expansion coeffi-
cient [90] or very high stiffness with low mass [91].
Mechanical properties of lattice structures are usually expressed
as a fraction of the mechanical properties of their parent material
[2] and are dependent on the relative density of the lattice structure
(r*/rs), which is the ratio of the apparent density of the cellular
structure (r*) to the density of the cellular structure’s material (rs).
Regardless of topology, the mechanical properties of lattice struc-
tures are known to decrease with reduced relative density [69]. The
The general deformation behaviour of lattice structures can be
divided into three discreet stages (Fig. 5): linear elastic deforma-
tion; plastic deformation; and, densification [86]. The component
struts of lattice structures are susceptible to three collapse mech-
anisms under compression e yield, buckling and fracture e that
compete until the mechanism with the lowest stress threshold is
reached [31].
During elastic deformation, the material response is linear
elastic with a modulus proportional to the structure material’s
elastic modulus. However, for the most accurate representation of
the elastic modulus of metallic cellular structures, Ashby et al.
recommend measuring the unloading modulus as it better repre-
sents the structure’s performance [93].
Once the elastic limit is reached, plastic deformation begins as
cells begin to yield or buckle. For bending-dominated structures
deformation continues with an almost constant stress, referred to
as the plateau stress, whereas the stress required for further
deformation oscillates in stretch-dominated structures. Once cell
components deform enough that contact with other components
occurs, constraining further deformation, the densification strain is
reached, and densification begins as stress steeply increases.
 T. Maconachie et al. / Materials and Design 183 (2019) 108137
Fig. 5. General compressive behaviour of stretch and bending-dominated lattice
structures during elastic deformation, plastic deformation and densification stages.
During this process there are three compressive failure modes:
successive cell collapse; propagation of cracks through the lattice;
and, diagonal shear [15]. Cells collapse due to buckling or crushing.
Crack propagation usually originates from a pre-existing defect,
and diagonal shear results in an initial loss of around 50% strength,
followed by somewhat uniform strengthening during densification.
Compressive strength decreases with increased unit cell size
when porosity is kept constant, due to the greater tendency for
buckling as strut slenderness increases [45]. Compressive strength
and stiffness are highly dependent on whether the unit cell exhibits
bending-dominated or stretch-dominated behaviour e bending-
dominated structures are compliant whereas stretch-dominated
structures have greater strength [94]. Selected experimental data
from the literature [45] on the compressive behaviour of certain cell
topologies which demonstrates this is presented in Fig. 6.
BCC and FCC cell topologies behave as bending-dominated
structures, with an initial stage of elastic deformation followed by
continuous deformation at an approximately constant plateau
stress. However, when topologies are reinforced with z-struts
(BCCZ, FCCZ), the structures exhibit stretch-dominated behaviour e
they are stronger and stiffer, requiring greater loads to cause
yielding and deformation, and the post-yield deformation occurs
with an oscillating stress [86].
Fig. 6. Stress-strain relationships for different strut-based cell topologies [45]. Inclusion of z-struts in BCC and FCC lattice structures changes behaviour from bending-dominated to
stretch-dominated.
7
This means that topologies that would technically be defined as
bending-dominated according to the Maxwell criterion, such as
BCCZ and FCCZ, are able to produce stretch-dominated behaviour
depending on the orientation of struts to the load direction [41].
Also, while lattice structures generally behave in the manner
described by Gibson and Ashby [95], as presented in Fig. 5, this may
not be the case for more unusual cellular topologies [96].
5.2. Fatigue performance
The fatigue performance of SLM lattice structures is critical for
many high-value technical applications. For example, both
biomedical and aerospace components are subject to stringent
limits associated with cyclic loading [12].
The fatigue behaviour of lattice structures subject to dynamic
loading can be broken into three stages: in Stage 1 strain increases
rapidly; in Stage 2 cumulative strain remains approximately con-
stant for around 104 to 106 cycles; and, in Stage 3 cumulative strain
increases exponentially, eventuating in the rapid failure of the
specimen [12].
The factors that most significantly affect the fatigue properties
of lattice structures are: the bulk material’s mechanical properties;
the relative density of the lattice; cell topology; and, the geometry
of the cell’s struts, which is defined by the distribution of material
within the structure [12]. Lattice fatigue life has been found to
consistently increase with increased relative density, but cell to-
pology significantly affects fatigue results. Cyclic ratchetting, which
refers to the progressive accumulation of strain during Stage 1 [97]
has been found to be dependent on cell topology and local geom-
etry [3]. Yavari et al. found that while lattice structures with certain
topologies (diamond and truncated cuboctahedron) had a fatigue
life between 1.5  105 and 2  105 cycles, lattice structures with
cube unit cells did not fail after 106 cycles (the limit of their tests)
[4].
Both relative density and topology affect lattice structure fatigue
performance. The fatigue behaviour of SLM lattice structures with
certain topologies and relative densities are compared in Fig. 7.
Lattice structures with greater relative density could sustain greater
loads for a larger number of cycles than those with lower relative
density (Fig. 7A), but truncated cuboctahedron lattice structures
could sustain greater loads for similar periods than diamond lattice
structures with similar relative densities (Fig. 7B).
Tensile loads cause bending stresses to develop in struts in
8 T. Maconachie et al. / Materials and Design 183 (2019) 108137
Fig. 7. A: Comparison of fatigue behaviour of SLM lattice structures with diamond (D) and truncated cuboctahedron (C) topologies and varying relative densities (%) [4]. B: Failure
stress after 50  103 cycles for different topologies and relative densities.
bending-dominated structures. These stresses can initiate cracks
within the struts that propagate until final fracture. As more struts
fail the load bearing capacity and stiffness of the fatigue-loaded
structure decreases until complete catastrophic failure [12].
Manufacturing defects such as the staircase effect can significantly
affect the fatigue properties of lattice structures [12] and reducing
porous defects in struts by optimising processing parameters can
significantly improve lattice fatigue performance [2].
Although it is clear that both the relative density and cell to-
pology of lattice structures affect their fatigue performance, the
broader fatigue behaviour of SLM lattice structures remains an
unexplored field [98].
5.3. Effects of processing parameters on SLM lattice structure
performance
As with any SLM-fabricated component, the selection of
appropriate SLM processing parameters is vitally important for
producing lattice structures with optimal performance [41]. Many
factors, such as powder morphology, size and chemical composi-
tion [99], as well as particle size distribution [100], laser exposure
strategy and power [101], laser scan speed, and layer thickness [66]
all affect the quality of SLM manufacturing outcomes. These factors
affect the mechanical properties of SLM lattice structures such as
strength and modulus in different ways. For example, Sing et al.
[102] found the strength and modulus, as well as dimensional ac-
curacy of SLM lattice structures to be most sensitive to laser power
compared to other processing parameters such as scan speed or
layer thickness. Processing parameters also affect the microstruc-
ture of SLM components [103], including lattice structures [101],
which affects mechanical properties. However, further characteri-
sation of the relationships between processing parameters and the
mechanical properties of SLM components is still required [104].
6. Microstructure of SLM components and effect of heat
treatment
SLM has many advantages as a manufacturing method, but the
manner of manufacture (melting of metallic powder) has implica-
tions for the microstructure of fabricated components.
The rapid and directional solidification associated with SLM can
significantly affect local microstructure. For example directional
solidification can result in a preferred crystallographic orientation
that can influence mechanical properties [98]. Furthermore, rapid
solidification can lead to grain refinement, which results in
improved deformation resistance as it acts as a barrier against
dislocation movement [76], but may also result in segregation
phenomena or non-equilibrium phases [105].
High temperature gradients result in a hexagonally-packed acic-
ular martensitic phase microstructure, a0 , for Tie6Ale4V [105,106].
Partial melting of previous layers during fabrication leads to elon-
gation of grains, which can improve mechanical properties such as
strength [107], the direction of which is determined by laser scanning
path and component geometry [105]. Solidification occurs primarily
through epitaxial growth in the direction of the heat flux [98].
The microstructure of SLM lattice structures results from the
SLM fabrication process, but microstructure can be further altered
with heat treatment.
6.1. Effect of heat treatment on microstructure
Heat treatments provide a viable means of improving the me-
chanical properties of lattice structures [12] in various ways,
including the closure of internal pores, improvement of local fusion
or microstructural modification [2]. For example, Wauthle et al.
investigated the effects of stress relief heat treatment and Hot
Isostatic Pressing (HIP) on the mechanical properties of Ti6Al4V
lattice structures and found stress relief to improve yield strength
15e25% and HIP to improve ductility, though, as is often the case, at
the cost of strength [98]. A comparison of the microstructures of as
built, stress relief and HIP specimens are presented in Fig. 8.
Maskery et al. found that heat treatment involving solution
treatment followed by water quenching and artificial ageing
significantly alters lattice deformation behaviour, resulting in stress-
strain curves more closely resembling the ideal cellular solid
deformation of the Gibson-Ashby model [15]. Heat treatment did not
increase the specific energy absorption of the tested lattice struc-
tures, but the same energy was absorbed with significantly lower
peak stresses. However, the lattice collapse strength was reduced by
approximately 25% compared to as-built lattice structures.
Pattanayak et al. found that post-processing chemical and heat
treatment of titanium specimens significantly improves surface
roughness [70] which has significant implications for improving
fatigue strength. Specimens were soaked in sodium hydroxide
followed by hydrochloric acid for bioactivation, and then washed
with pure water. They were then heated to 600  C for 1 h then
allowed cooling naturally in the furnace. This was also found to
improve biocompatibility as it produces a sodium-free titanium
oxide on the surface which has also been found to form a bone-like
apatite layer in a simulated body fluid [70]. However, Koehnen
found annealing 316L stainless steel lattice had no beneficial effect
on tensile or fatigue strength [86].
 T. Maconachie et al. / Materials and Design 183 (2019) 108137
Fig. 8. The microstructural effects of stress relief heat treatment (B) and hot isostatic
pressing (HIP) (C) compared with as built Ti6Al4V (A) [97]. In the as built condition (A)
martensitic a0 -phase within prior b grains are observed to be mostly aligned with the
build direction, whereas the heat-treated microstructure (B) shows a transformed a0 -
phase consisting of fine a platelets where the b-phase is present. After HIP treatment
(C) no preferential grain orientation was observed resulting in an isotropic
microstructure.
These findings suggest that heat treatments provide opportu-
nities for designers to tune the mechanical response of SLM lattice
structures. However, as with bulk materials, there is often a trade-
off between certain properties, such as strength and ductility [108],
and for precise control of response, these relationships must be
further understood.
7. Potential geometric defects of SLM lattice structures
SLM-fabricated components are potentially prone to geometric
defects which can be caused by a variety of issues such as subop-
timal processing parameters [109] or internal defects due to
incomplete filling by the laser trajectory [45]. Residual stresses
resulting from the significant thermal gradients experienced by
components during manufacture can also cause geometric defects
and macroscopical deformation such as severe notches or distorted
struts [67]. The staircase effect is another form of geometric error
common to AM processes including SLM. These defects have im-
plications for the mechanical and biological properties of fabricated
components and affect the manufacturability, dimensional accu-
racy and surface roughness of SLM lattice structures [2].
7.1. Manufacturability
The geometries that can feasibly be fabricated by SLM are sub-
ject to manufacturability constraints. For example, there exists a
9
minimum inclination angle for overhanging surfaces below which
structures cannot be manufactured without excessive geometric
distortion [110]. This minimum inclination angle is a function of
processing parameters, material type and powder characteristics,
and is often simplified as being 45 [111]. For example, Yan et al.
found that struts with an inclination angle <30 could not be
manufactured by SLM as this led to serious distortion [47].
There is also a minimum feature size that can be reliably man-
ufactured by SLM. For example Pattanayak found the fabrication of
wall thicknesses below 300 mm to be infeasible [70]. However, to a
certain extent these concerns can be overcome by careful control of
processing parameters. For instance Santorinaios et al. were able to
reduce the attachment of unmelted particles through optimisation
of processing parameters [96].
7.2. Dimensional accuracy
Limitations of the SLM process can lead to discrepancies between
the intended and as-fabricated lattice structure geometries. These
discrepancies may be due to shrinkage after melting, attachment of
unmelted particles or waviness and roughness of struts, and have
been shown to be detrimental to the strength and stiffness of these
structures [112]. Both the nominal and measured geometry of
fabricated components are often reported in the literature for this
reason (Table 7). For example, results of micro computed tomogra-
phy (mCT) analysis of SLM lattice structures performed by Delago
et al. showed significant discrepancies between CAD models and as
fabricated geometry, with build-up of additional material in some
areas and a lack of material in others [67]. The inclusion of these
geometric defects in finite element models of SLM lattice structures
was consistently found to reduce stiffness.
The “staircase effect” (Fig. 9) is a well-known phenomenon
common to many AM methods, including SLM which affects the
dimensional accuracy of fabricated components [113]. Due to the
layer-wise fabrication process, angled surfaces are fabricated with
layer thickness-sized ridges, reducing the conformity between
intended and fabricated geometries. Surface quality is reduced,
necessitating post-processing procedures.
Dimensional errors can occur in SLM-fabricated components due
to discrepancies between the intended geometry and the size and
position of the melt pool. To compensate for this laser scan vectors
are usually shifted half of the laser spot size inwards [47]. However,
applying this method may still result in errors. For example, when
using a spot size of 80 mm with scan vectors shifted inwards 40 mm,
Van Bael et al. found the melt pool size to be approximately 180 mm,
constraining the feasible minimum feature size [112]. It was noted
that decreasing laser power and increasing scan velocity can reduce
melt pool size, but this limits porosity control and imposes a design
constraint by reducing the controllability of pore sizes below
400 mm. Mullen et al. proposed this could be due to diffusive heating
of neighbouring struts due to momentary thermal diffusion through
the powder during scanning [74].
7.3. Surface roughness
The surface roughness of SLM-fabricated components is affected
by a number of factors, including the stability, dimensions and
behaviour of the melt pool during the SLM process [105], as well as the
orientation of a surface to the laser beam [111] (Fig. 10). When a sur-
face is facing upward during fabrication it experiences direct contact
with the laser beam, and almost all particles in contact with the sur-
face are melted. However, unsupported downward-facing surfaces
are in contact with the powder bed, and when the melt pool solidifies
unmelted particles become attached. Increasing the inclination angle
of downward facing surfaces reduces this effect [111].
Surface roughness of SLM lattice structures has been found to be
10 T. Maconachie et al. / Materials and Design 183 (2019) 108137

Fig. 9. The staircase effect e discrepancies between intended and fabricated geometries result from the layer-wise fabrication method of AM. The difference between layer
thickness and laser melt depth enables fusion between layers at overlaps but also causes the adhesion of unmelted particles to downward-facing surfaces.

significantly affected by the inclination of its component struts due
to the adhesion of unmelted particles to the downward-facing
surfaces [94]. During the SLM process downward-facing surfaces
have the potential to overheat which can cause partially fused
powder particles to adhere to them [114]. The area of downward-
facing surfaces is inversely proportional to inclination angle,
meaning lower inclined struts have greater downward-facing sur-
face area, increasing the potential for the adhesion of unmelted
particles and reducing surface quality.
However, surface roughness is not necessarily a disadvantage
for certain applications, as various biomedical criteria for implants
such as cell attachment are improved with increased surface
roughness [115]. For example, Sarker et al. found inclination angle
can be utilised to modify the surface topography of metallic im-
plants for directed Staphylococcus aureus biofilm restriction [77].
mechanisms of SLM lattice structures are not only defined by cell
topology and geometry, but that geometric defects induced by SLM,
such as strut waviness, strut thickness variation and oversizing of
struts also play a significant role [116]. Microstructural defects
resulting from the SLM process also negatively affect the perfor-
mance of lattice structures [117].
The presence of defects may be reduced by optimisation of
processing parameters [109], but due to the manner of fabrication
and the complexity of the process, it seems SLM-fabricated com-
ponents are inherently susceptible to certain levels of defects. For
this reason, much research has been conducted on accounting for
these defects in the numerical modelling of SLM lattice structures
to more accurately predict their behaviour.
8. Numerical modelling of SLM lattice structures

7.4. Effects of defects on the mechanical performance of SLM lattice
structures
Geometric imperfections associated with SLM lattice structures
are understood to have a significant effect on mechanical perfor-
mance and deformation behaviour [73], and can severely
compromise functionality, particularly the elastic and failure
response of lattice structures [75]. Studies suggest the failure
Efforts to develop models to predict the mechanical behaviour
of cellular structures date back as far as the 1950s [118], but with
the modern broad adoption of Finite Element (FE) methods, various
numerical models for predicting this behaviour have recently been
developed.
However, as stated above, defects resulting from the fabrication
process significantly affect the mechanical behaviour of SLM lattice
structures, and so it is understood that these structures cannot be

Fig. 10. Comparison of upward and downward-facing surface qualities of specimens fabricated by SLM. Very few unmelted particles become attached to upward-facing surfaces (A),
whereas downward-facing surfaces are in contact with the powder bed and many unmelted particles are attached.
 T. Maconachie et al. / Materials and Design 183 (2019) 108137
accurately modelled based on ideal geometries. Accurate modelling
of these structures requires that manufacturing defects be
accounted for, and as such, the incorporation of defects into
simplified models of SLM lattice structures has received consider-
able research attention:

Liu et al. [116] identified defects using mCT and incorporated
these into models where each strut was represented by four
beam elements, with nodal offset and radius assigned based on
respective Kernel density function for the waviness and thick-
ness variation.

Lei et al. [73] used mCT to quantify strut diameter variation, and
generated struts where variation was reconstructed such that
defect distribution locations were maintained.

Lozanovski et al. [119] used mCT to study the variation in the
principal moments of inertia, principal axis orientations and
centroid deviation of AM struts, and proposed a method for
modelling these with elliptical cross-sections that mimic the
mCT-derived properties.

Concli and Gilioli [120] proposed a lumped parameter model for
a lattice-based sandwich panel, the elementary cells of which
were represented by a set of non-linear springs with stiffness
behaviour determined by the response of FEM models simulated
under compression, shear, torsion and tension.

Amani et al. [121] compared homogenous and heterogeneous
models accounting for porosity through a Gurson-Tvergaard-
Needleman model based on mCT scanning and found the ho-
mogenous model overpredicted the response while the het-
erogeneous model was a better match to experimental results.

Ravari et al. [117] generated FE models where strut diameter and
axial deviations were represented using spheres with varying
diameters and centroid locations. These models were able to
capture the effects of microstructural imperfections on lattice
structure performance.

Campoli et al. [122] represented AM struts using beam elements
of varying diameters, the diameters were drawn from a
Gaussian distribution fitted to diameters derived from scanning
electron microscopy.
Balancing the competing objectives of accurate modelling of
SLM lattice structures while minimising computational expense
remains an open field for research. Progress requires a multidisci-
plinary approach incorporating simulation of both the PBF process
and the mechanical response of lattice structures, as well as char-
acterisation of SLM processing and manufacturability. Due to the
complexity of accurate numerical modelling of lattice structures,
other methods of predicting their performance are often used, such
as the Gibson-Ashby model.
9. The Gibson-Ashby model
The Gibson-Ashby model is the most notable and commonly
accepted model for the prediction of the properties of cellular
structures, including lattice structures [95]. A range of mechanical,
thermal and electrical properties of cellular structures can be pre-
dicted based on the structure’s relative density and are expressed as
fractions of the properties of structure’s parent material. Formulae
are provided for various mechanical properties, including shear and
flexural moduli, endurance limit and hardness, but all are functions
of the structure’s strength or modulus. These properties are
dependent on the type of response exhibited by the structure
(bending or stretch-dominated) and have a positive power rela-
tionship with the structure’s relative density [31]. The formulae for
the modulus and strength of bending and stretch-dominated
cellular structures are presented in Table 3, where:
11
E* ¼ The static modulus of the cellular structure.
Es ¼ The static modulus of the cellular structure’s bulk material.
C ¼ Gibson-Ashby constant, the value of which is dependent on the unit cell
topology and geometry and is derived from experimental results.
s* ¼ The strength of the cellular structure.
sy,s ¼ Yield stress of the cellular structure’s bulk material.
9.1. Gibson-Ashby model in the literature of SLM lattice structures
Many studies on the performance of SLM lattice structures have
found experimental results to be consistent with predictions of the
Gibson-Ashby model, such as:

McKown et al. found the modulus of BCCZ lattice structured
increased with the square of the relative density, as predicted by
the Gibson-Ashby model, but found the modulus of BCC lattice
structures to fall below predicted values. This was explained by
the lack of axial struts in BCC lattice structures making them
more compliant under compressive loads, resulting in global
deformation with minimal local failure [123].

Yan et al. observed increases in both modulus and strength of
SLM lattice structures with increased relative density to be
consistent with expectations of the Gibson-Ashby model [47].

Zargarian et al. were able to relate relative density, bulk material
fatigue properties, cell geometry and solid distribution to the
fatigue performance of SLM lattice structures as predicted by the
Gibson-Ashby model [12].
However, discrepancies between experimental results and the
model’s predications have also been observed, which have been
attributed to several factors, including:

Residual stresses resulting from the SLM fabrication process can
lead to deformation at stress levels lower than those predicted [47].

Lattice density can be overestimated by means such as Archi-
medes’ method as SLM-fabricated components often have
unmelted powder attached to their surface, which increase
volume without contributing to strength, resulting in miscal-
culation of effective relative density and discrepancies with
predicted results [124].

Zadpoor notes that analytical assessments of the relative density
of SLM lattice structures for the application of the Gibson-Ashby
model are prone to errors due to counting the mass contributed
by struts multiple times at their junction [2].

The difficulty of accurate identification of strut geometry for
stress calculations is noted by Zhang et al. They also note that
lattice structures can exhibit both linear and non-linear elastic
behaviours when loaded meaning identification of the correct
modulus can be difficult [3].
However, while certain discrepancies may exist between experi-
mental results and predictions of the Gibson-Ashby model, its
Table 3
Gibson-Ashby model formulae [31].
Response type Mechanical property Formula Equation number
  2
Bending-dominated Modulus (E) E r 3
¼C
Es rs
Strength (s)  3
s r 2 4
¼C
sy;s rs
 
Modulus (E) E r 5
¼C
Stretch-dominated Es rs
 
Strength (s) s r 6
¼C
sy;s rs
12 T. Maconachie et al. / Materials and Design 183 (2019) 108137

Table 4
Quasi-static compressive test data for SLM lattice data collected from literature, ordered by unit cell topology. Data represents ranges of values reported. Dash (e) indicates an
absence of data.

Topology Material Relative Cell size Strut Geometry (N ¼ nominal, Compressive Modulus Reference Data
density (%) (mm) diameter M ¼ measured) strength (MPa) (MPa) points
(mm)

BCC 316L SS 3.5e13.8 1.25 0.19e0.22 N 0.36e5.89 17.89e378 [125] 21

BCC 316L SS 2.3e4.3 e 0.162 N 0.2e1 8.68e57.56 [64] 18
e0.23
BCC, BCCZ 316L SS 5.3e16.6 1.5e2.5 0.25 N 0.92e15 50e2700 [123] 8
BCC, BCCZ AlSi10Mg 0.7e22.2 10 1 N, M 0.46e4.36 21.71 [73] 8
e490.22
BCC, BCCZ, FCC, FCCZ Inconel 625 2.5e13.8 2e4 0.3 N, M 0.8e10.9 22.1e1246 [45] 13
BCC, BCCZ, FCC, FCCZ, FBCCZ, Ti6Al4V, 7.5e39.7 2e7.5 0.3e1 N, M 4e124 110e2780 [126] 18
FBCCXYZ AlSi12Mg
BCC, Octet-truss SS 630 (17- 43 e e N, M e 9710 [68] 5
4PH) e13,960
Diamond Ti6Al4V 3.6e26.5 e e N 8.2e99.64 370e4240 [13] 4
Dodecahedron Ti6Al4V 15.78 e e N, M 19.4e117.2 550e3490 [127] 4
e314.55
Gyroid CP titanium 26.7e31.3 2e3 e N 44.9e54.5 1465e2676 [76] 3
Gyroid, Schwartz diamond Ti6Al4V 5e95 3e7 e N 47e1559 120 [71] 4
e17,190
Octet-truss, AlSi10Mg 10.4e14.7 e e N, M 4.7e9.1 690e1250 [75] 2
Rhombicuboctahedron
Schwartz primitive, cylinder grid Ti6Al4V 70e90 1.5 0.37e0.58 N, M e 920e2420 [69] 4
Simple cubic Ti6Al4V 19.4e36.2 e 0.54e0.64 N, M 108e170 5360e8730 [72] 5
Truncated cuboctahedron, simple Ti6Al4V 20e34 e e N, M 31.7e112.6 2180e4578 [4] 12
cubic, diamond
Total 129

fundamental insight e that there is a positive power relationship   n

between the properties of a lattice structure and its relative density
e is generally accepted, and as such, the model is regularly refer-
enced in the literature of AM lattice structures.
9.2. Compressive experimental data for SLM lattice structures
reported in the literature
Experimental data from compressive testing as reported in the
literature was collected and is presented in Table 4. The data is or-
dered by the unit cell topologies investigated and summarised by the
ranges of reported values. The mechanical performance of lattice
structures is usually quantified in terms of the structure’s strength
and modulus meaning these are the most commonly reported values.
Lattice density may be measured or predicted by various
methods, each of which has a certain level of error. For example,
when the density is measured from CAD data (nominal geometry),
significant errors are introduced as the SLM-manufactured geom-
etry varies from that of the input CAD data. Alternately, density may
be measured directly (by Archimedes’ method) or inferred from
mCT data (measured geometry). These experimental methods in-
crease the confidence in the reported relative density but incur
experimental costs and effort. To allow insight into the effect of
these density quantification methods on the reported data, the
prediction method is reported in Table 4.
9.3. Comparison of reported experimental data with predictions of
the Gibson-Ashby model
As stated above, the Gibson-Ashby model relates the relative
strength (s*/ss) or modulus (E*/Es) of a cellular structure with its
relative density (r*/rs) in the form of a positive power relationship
with a coefficient (C) and exponent (n), as presented in Eqs. (7a) and
(7b).
 n
s r
¼C
ss rs
E r
¼C (7b)
Es rs
The Gibson-Ashby model defines exponent values depending on
whether the structure exhibits bending-dominated or stretch-
dominated behaviour (Table 3), and coefficients are derived from
experimental results for given unit cell topologies. However, the
exponent may also be derived from experimental results, and co-
efficients defined based on these derived exponents.
Many studies on the compressive behaviour of SLM lattice
structures compare their experimental results with predictions of
the Gibson-Ashby model, but broader insight regarding the pre-
dictive capabilities of the Gibson-Ashby model for SLM lattice
structures is limited by the scope of these studies. To expand this
insight, collected experimental data is compared with the predicted
range of properties for bending-dominated open-celled cellular
structures (Fig. 11). The Gibson-Ashby model predicts the co-
efficients for metallic open-celled cellular structures to be in the
range of [0.1e4] and [0.1e1] for modulus and strength respectively
based on analytical modelling, extensive testing on polymeric
foams, and empirical fits to experimental data [93].
Reported strength and modulus values were normalised against
standard reported material properties as presented in Table 5.
From this comparison (Fig. 11) the following is observed:

For both modulus and strength data, most results were found to
fall within the predicted range.

Although some data points do not sit within the predicted range,
this range was generated based on the behaviour of open-celled
metallic foams, and it is not unexpected that non-stochastic
lattice structures with repeating unit cells may exhibit
different behaviour.

Topologies seem to congregate within certain regions of the
graphs, particularly BCC lattice structures, which is consistent
with the understanding that unit cell topology is very significant
in defining the behaviour of an SLM lattice structure.
(7a)
Although most of the topologies presented would technically be
categorised as bending-dominated structures according to the
Maxwell criterion, some, such as the octet-truss and FBCCXYZ,
 T. Maconachie et al. / Materials and Design 183 (2019) 108137 13

Fig. 11. Comparison of reported experimental compressive strength (A) and modulus (B) data with predictions of the Gibson-Ashby model.

are technically stretch-dominated structures. Despite this these
structures still fell within the predicted range for bending-
dominated structures. However, there are overlaps in the per-
formance of bending and stretch-dominated structures, and no
equivalent range of coefficients is predicted for stretch-
dominated cellular structures [93].

Consistent with the findings of McKown et al. [123], the moduli
of BCC lattice structures were found to be in the lower range or
below the predicted values.
These findings suggest the Gibson-Ashby model describes the
relationships between the relative density and the properties of
SLM lattice structures and demonstrates it to be a useful means of
predicting their behaviour. Although precise prediction of these
properties may be infeasible, the model is intended to be “useful in
the early stages of design when approximate analysis of compo-
nents and structures is needed” [93].
9.4. Regression analysis of reported experimental data
To investigate the relationship between the relative density and
mechanical properties (strength and modulus) of SLM lattice
structures, power regression2 analysis was performed on the
2
Power regression identifies trends in the form as presented in Eqs. (7a) and
(7b), where “C” is the coefficient and “n” is the exponent.
14 T. Maconachie et al. / Materials and Design 183 (2019) 108137

Table 5 10. Reporting of experimental data on SLM lattice structures

Material properties used for normalisation of experimental results.

Material Property Value
Inconel 625 Density 8.44 g/cm3
Yield strength 460 MPa
Modulus 205.8 GPa
Density 4.43 g/cm3
TiAl64V Yield strength 880 MPa
Modulus 193 GPa
Density 8 g/cm3
Stainless steel Yield strength 205 MPa
Modulus 193 GPa
Density 2.67 g/cm3
AlSi10Mg Yield strength 240 MPa
Modulus 70 GPa
experimental data collected from the literature. This analysis was
performed on different topologies discreetly, but also on the whole
data set (Table 6). These identified relationships provide a resource
for designers wishing to identify topologies appropriate to their
needs.
From this regression analysis the following is observed:

There was significant variance in the correlations (R2) found for
different topologies. While some topologies, such as FCC had
very high correlations for both strength (99.79%) and modulus
(99.79%), others, such as FBCCZ, had high correlations for one
property (strength ¼ 95.31%) but low correlations for the other
(modulus ¼ 46.6%). Some, such as the Gyroid, had very low
correlations for both strength (5.64%) and modulus (1.85%).

The correlation for the whole data set (“all topologies”) was
relatively low for both strength (70.35%) and modulus (60.25%).
However, this is to be expected as both coefficient and exponent
appear to be dependent on topology considering the generally
high correlations found for individual topologies.

Correlations were generally higher for strength than they were
for modulus, though only marginally.

Comparisons between the derived exponents and those pre-
dicted by the Gibson-Ashby model for bending and stretch-
dominated structures provide insight into the general behav-
iour of these topologies. For example, the exponent for the
strength of FCCZ (n ¼ 1.59) is very close to that predicted for
stretch-dominated structures (n ¼ 1.5) suggesting this topology
behaves more like a stretch-dominated structure despite being
bending-dominated according to the Maxwell criterion.

Consistent with the insights of the Gibson-Ashby model, these
findings suggest that a positive power relationship can be drawn
between the relative density of an SLM lattice structure and its
strength or modulus. This further demonstrates the relevance of
the Gibson-Ashby model for predicting and describing the
behaviour of SLM lattice structures.
Reference Within the literature of SLM lattice structures there are in-
[128]
consistencies in the reporting of experimental parameters and
processes. To provide a robust basis for engineering design, the
[129] reporting of SLM lattice mechanical response should be accompa-
nied by sufficient experimental documentation such that these
[130]
results can be understood and are repeatable. The fundamental
data reported to document the SLM experimental data summarised
[131] in this work is presented in Table 7.
Consideration of the reported data provides the following
insights:
[132]

The geometry of the lattice structures investigated was
commonly reported (85%), but usually only the nominal ge-
ometry (derived from analytical formula of from CAD model),
whereas fewer reported the measured geometry (50%).

Reporting of chemical composition was quite limited (25%)
though those who did report composition usually reported both
the nominal composition and the actual composition of the
material used.

Load rate and strain rate describe the same experimental
parameter e the rate at which specimens were loaded during
experiments e but a minority (30%) reported this in normalised
terms (strain rate) while most (65%) reported the actual speed of
the testing rig (load rate). Very few (10%) reported both.
The absence of certain data is in some cases explained by the
focus of the research. For example, as Hao et al. were concerned
with the thermal behaviour of SLM lattice structures, samples were
not loaded, meaning there was no reportable load or strain rate.
Others, such as Burton et al. [69] were concerned with modelling of
SLM lattice structures, using mechanical testing only for validation
of these models, and so were not so concerned with certain data
such as composition or process parameters.
However, for repeatability and robustness, the methods and
materials used to produce reported data should be presented
wherever possible.
11. Outstanding challenges and future directions
Although great interest has been taken in SLM lattice structures
for a variety of applications, challenges remain for their broader
commercial adoption, such as accounting for the manufacturing
defects which result from the fabrication process, models for effi-
ciently and accurately predicting the behaviour of lattice structures,
implementation of functionally-graded lattice structures and
greater characterisation of fatigue behaviour.

Table 6
Regression analysis of reported lattice structure experimental data.

Unit cell topology Strength (MPa) Modulus (MPa)

2
Coefficient (C) Exponent (n) Correlation (R ) (%) Coefficient (C) Exponent (n) Correlation (R2) (%)

All topologies 0.24 1.16 68.02 0.15 1.67 60.27

BCC 0.14 1.14 66.56 0.07 1.71 66.74
BCCZ 0.06 0.48 38.84 0.01 0.22 12.42
Diamond 0.08 0.55 9.43 0.04 0.86 21.99
Dodecahedron 2.21 2.51 99.04 0.63 2.64 99.93
FBCCXYZ 1.20 1.99 98.34 0.10 1.28 87.72
FBCCZ 1.04 1.72 95.31 0.03 0.54 46.60
FCC 1.18 1.75 99.79 0.37 1.94 99.97
FCCZ 1.32 1.59 99.43 0.35 1.50 91.93
Gyroid 0.06 0.17 5.64 0.01 0.22 1.85
Schwartz diamond 0.77 1.36 99.76 0.05 0.76 96.61
Simple cubic 0.64 1.23 64.09 0.15 0.93 37.02
Average 70.35 Average 60.25
 T. Maconachie et al. / Materials and Design 183 (2019) 108137 15

Table 7
Summary of fundamental data reported to document experimental parameters for reported SLM lattice test data.
Tick (✓) indicates the presence of data. Dash () indicates an absence of data.

Publication Reference Geometry Geometry Density Density Composition Composition SLM Heat Load rate Strain rate
scope (nominal) (actual) (nominal) (actual) (nominal) (actual) process treatment (mm/min) (s1)
parameters

Aerospace [14] ✓ e e e e e e e e e
Aerospace [133] e e e e e e e e 5 e
Aerospace [11] ✓ e ✓ e e e e e e e
Biomedical [71] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ e e ✓ ✓ 0.4 e
Biomedical [76] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ e e 0.001
Biomedical [5] e e ✓ e e e ✓ e 36 0.05
Biomedical [83] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ e e ✓ e 4.5 0.1
Biomedical [4] ✓ ✓ e ✓ e e e e e e
Biomedical [112] ✓ e e ✓ ✓ e ✓ ✓ 1 e
Energy [16] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ e e e e e 0.001
absorption
Energy [15] ✓ e ✓ ✓ e e ✓ ✓ 0.54 e
absorption
Energy [123] ✓ e ✓ e e e e e 0.5 e
absorption
Mechanical [65] e e ✓ e e e e e 1 e
properties
Mechanical [45] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ e 1.8e3.6 e
properties
Mechanical [86] ✓ e ✓ e ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ e 0.001
properties
Mechanical [94] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ e e ✓ e e 0.001
properties
Mechanical [9] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ e e ✓ ✓ 0.4 e
properties
Mechanical [47] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ e e ✓ e 0.4 e
properties
Mechanical [85] ✓ e ✓ e ✓ ✓ e e 0.6 e
properties
Mechanical [134] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ e e ✓ e 0.4 e
properties
Number reported 17 10 16 12 5 4 12 5 13 6
Total reported (%) 85 50 80 60 25 20 60 25 65 30

11.1. Accounting for manufacturing defects capture deformation and the high number of degrees of freedom
necessary to do this, they are very computationally expensive [135].
As discussed above, SLM fabrication of lattice structures is un- As discussed, the inclusion of defects in FE models to accurately
derstood to result in manufacturing defects which affect the per- predict the behaviour of SLM lattice structures has received much
formance of SLM lattice structures. Optimisation of processing research attention, which is further exacerbated by the re-
parameters has been demonstrated to reduce these defects, how- quirements for minimising computational expense.
ever it seems a certain level of defect is inherent to the SLM
fabrication process. While certain defects such as geometric irreg-
11.3. Functionally-graded and locally tuned lattice structures
ularities or surface roughness may be overcome by post-processing,
the complexity of SLM lattice structures mean these defects must
While this review has been focused on lattice structures with a
be accounted for as they cannot be entirely eliminated. One way in
constant density, functionally-graded lattice (FGL) are another form
which these defects are being accounted for is by the inclusion of
of lattice enabled by AM. FGL have a varying density across their
defects into predictive finite element models.
structure and have several potential advantages over uniform
density lattice structures, such as greater material efficiency [136]
and superior energy absorption potential [137].
11.2. Efficient and precise predictive models
Topologically optimised structures are another form of structure
enabled by AM that have been used for similar design purposes as
To avoid the costs of fabrication and experimentation of lattice
lattice structures [138,139]. FGL are useful for the application of
structures, models which can precisely and efficiently predict the
multi-objective topology optimisation, as they can be used to
behaviour of lattice structures are necessary. While FE modelling
match density gradients within structures designed by these
provides opportunities in this space, managing the inherent trade-
methods [140]. Some studies have been conducted to quantify the
off between the computational expense and accuracy of these
properties of FGL and compare them to uniform lattice structures,
models for predicting the behaviour of SLM lattice structures re-
but these usually involve simple, linear density profiles. These
mains the focus of much research.
structures have potential for highly-tuned performance for specific
Some models have been developed that use reduced order el-
applications [141], meaning opportunities for further investigation
ements such as beam elements. These models are computationally
into applications of FGL remain.
efficient, but struggle to account for the complex interactions be-
tween struts at their intersections [135] which significantly affect
mechanical behaviour. Continuum element models that more 11.4. Fatigue behaviour of SLM lattice structures
precisely capture the behaviour of strut interactions have also been
developed. These models more accurately represent as-fabricated This paper has explored some of the reported fatigue behaviour
geometries, but due to the dense meshes necessary to accurately of lattice structures (Section 5.2) but as stated above, this behaviour
16 T. Maconachie et al. / Materials and Design 183 (2019) 108137
is still relatively undefined. Some specifics have been observed,
such as the general SeN behaviour of lattice structures under fa-
tigue and the effects of relative density and certain topologies on
lattice fatigue life, but a broader understanding of the fatigue per-
formance of AM lattice structures is yet to be achieved.
11.5. Future work
Other areas of study which would facilitate the greater charac-
terisation and commercial adoption of SLM lattice structures
include:

The performance of SLM lattice structures have been charac-
terised in their as fabricated state, but knowledge of their per-
formance during operation is still limited. The thermal
behaviour of SLM lattice structures during operation, especially
the effect of atmospheric phenomena for aerospace applications
[14], and the effect of biodegradation on the fatigue strength of
SLM lattice implants for biomedical applications [2] are yet to be
characterised.

Most research on SLM lattice structures focuses on either strut-
based or TPMS lattice structures discretely. Research on their
comparative performance is still needed to identify the appro-
priateness of these design approaches for different applications
and performance requirements.

The tensile performance of SLM lattice structures is still not well
defined as most research uses compressive experiments for
identification of their mechanical properties largely due to the
greater difficulty of tensile lattice experimental design.
Knowledge of the behaviour of lattice structures is quite
disparate, as researchers have investigated isolated areas of the
broad field of lattice structures. Greater homogenisation and
standardisation of this field could lead to new insights and enhance
the applicability of SLM lattice structures for all applications [96].
12. Concluding remarks
SLM allows the fabrication of complex geometries with high
resolution, which is perfect for the manufacture of lattice struc-
tures. Using this technology, lattice structures with highly tuned
geometries and topologies can be fabricated to produce a wide
variety of properties unachievable by their bulk materials. This has
led to research into these structures, particularly for biomedical,
light-weighting and energy-absorption applications. However,
there exists no overarching analysis of this data. This work has
sought to overcome this limitation by providing an overview of the
literature regarding SLM lattice structures, with meta-analysis on
the reported data. Key findings of this analysis include:

Most of the strength and modulus data analysed fell within the
range of values predicted by the Gibson-Ashby model, sug-
gesting positive power relationships between the relative den-
sity and mechanical properties of SLM lattice structures, and
indicating the model to be a useful tool for describing and
predicting the mechanical behaviour of SLM lattice structures.

Certain topologies, such as the octet-truss and FBCXYZ, which
are technically stretch-dominated according to the Maxwell
criterion fell within the range of values predicted for bending-
dominated structures. Although there are overlaps in these
behaviours, this does suggest that in terms of strength and
modulus bending-dominated predictions may be appropriate to
stretch-dominated structures.

Topologies tended to congregate in certain areas of the strength
and modulus graphs e for example BCC lattice structures tended
to congregate around the lower end of predicted range e which
suggests that topology is significant in determining the me-
chanical response of SLM lattice structures.

Regression analysis of the reported data demonstrated positive
power relationships with high correlations could be drawn be-
tween the relative density and strength of modulus for most
topologies, consistent with the insights of the Gibson-Ashby
model.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Tobias Maconachie: Formal analysis, Investigation, Data cura-
tion, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visuali-
zation. Martin Leary: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing -
original draft, Writing - review & editing, Project administration,
Funding acquisition. Bill Lozanovski: Writing - original draft.
Xuezhe Zhang: Conceptualization, Methodology. Ma Qian: Writing
- review & editing, Supervision. Omar Faruque: Resources, Su-
pervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Milan
Brandt: Resources, Supervision, Project administration.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted by the Australian Research Council
Industrial Transformation Training Centre in Additive Bio-
manufacturing (IC160100026).
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support
from the members of the ARC Training Centre for Lightweight
Automotive Structures and from the Australian Research Council
(Grant Reference IC160100032).
The authors acknowledge the facilities, and the scientific and
technical assistance of the RMIT Advanced Manufacturing Precinct.
References
[1] L. Hao, et al., Design and additive manufacturing of cellular lattice structures,
in: The International Conference on Advanced Research in Virtual and Rapid
Prototyping (VRAP), Taylor & Francis Group, Leiria, 2011.
[2] A.A. Zadpoor, Mechanical performance of additively manufactured meta-
biomaterials, Acta Biomater. (2018).
[3] X.Z. Zhang, et al., Selective electron beam manufactured Ti-6Al-4V lattice
structures for orthopedic implant applications: Current status and
outstanding challenges, Curr. Opinion Solid State Mater. Sci. 22 (3) (2018)
75e99.
[4] S.A. Yavari, et al., Relationship between unit cell type and porosity and the
fatigue behavior of selective laser melted meta-biomaterials, J. Mech. Behav.
Biomed. Mater. 43 (2015) 91e100.
[5] E. Alabort, D. Barba, R.C. Reed, Design of metallic bone by additive
manufacturing, Scr. Mater. 164 (2019) 110e114.
[6] J. Christensen, F.J.G. de Abajo, Anisotropic metamaterials for full control of
acoustic waves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (12) (2012) 124301.
[7] U. Levy, et al., Inhomogenous dielectric metamaterials with space-variant
polarizability, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (24) (2007) 243901.
[8] N. Fang, et al., Ultrasonic metamaterials with negative modulus, Nat. Mater. 5
(6) (2006) 452.
[9] C. Yan, et al., Microstructure and mechanical properties of aluminium alloy
cellular lattice structures manufactured by direct metal laser sintering,
Mater. Sci. Eng. A 628 (2015) 238e246.
[10] D. Shidid, et al., Just-in-time Design and Additive Manufacture of Patient-
specific Medical Implants, Phys. Procedia 83 (2016) 4e14.
[11] Z. Hao, et al., Lightweight structure of a phase-change thermal controller
based on lattice cells manufactured by SLM, Chin. J. Aeronaut. 32 (7) (2019)
1727e1732.
[12] A. Zargarian, et al., On the Fatigue Behavior of Additive Manufactured Lattice
Structures, Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 100 (2019) 225e232.
[13] S.M. Ahmadi, et al., Mechanical behavior of regular open-cell porous bio-
materials made of diamond lattice unit cells, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater.
34 (2014) 106e115.
[14] M. Bici, et al., Development of a multifunctional panel for aerospace use
through SLM Additive Manufacturing, Procedia CIRP 67 (1) (2018) 215e220.
[15] I. Maskery, et al., Compressive failure modes and energy absorption in
additively manufactured double gyroid lattices, Addit. Manuf. 16 (2017)
24e29.
[16] J.A. Harris, R.E. Winter, G.J. McShane, Impact response of additively manu-
factured metallic hybrid lattice materials, Int. J. Impact Eng. 104 (2017)
 T. Maconachie et al. / Materials and Design 183 (2019) 108137
177e191.
[17] H. Gong, et al., Analysis of defect generation in Ti-6Al-4V parts made using
powder bed fusion additive manufacturing processes, Addit. Manuf. 1 (2014)
87e98.
[18] L.J. Gibson, M.F. Ashby, B.A. Harley, Cellular materials in nature and medicine,
Cambridge University Press, 2010.
[19] J. Banhart, H.W. Seeliger, Aluminium Foam Sandwich Panels: Manufacture,
Metallurgy and Applications, Adv. Eng. Mater. 10 (9) (2008) 793e802.
[20] F. Zhu, et al., Plastic Deformation, Failure and Energy Absorption of Sandwich
Structures with Metallic Cellular Cores, Int. J. Protective Struct. 1 (4) (2010)
507e541.
[21] J. Banhart, Manufacturing routes for metallic foams, Jom 52 (12) (2000)
22e27.
[22] S. Santosa, T. Wierzbicki, Crash behavior of box columns filled with
aluminum honeycomb or foam, Comput. Struct. 68 (4) (1998) 343e367.
[23] M. Seitzberger, et al., Crushing of axially compressed steel tubes filled with
aluminium foam, Acta Mech. 125 (1-4) (1997) 93e105.
[24] A. Hanssen, M. Langseth, O. Hopperstad, Static crushing of square aluminium
extrusions with aluminium foam filler, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 41 (8) (1999)
967e993.
[25] F. Simancik, et al., Aluminium foam-a new light-weight structural material,
Met. Mater. 35 (1997) 187e194.
[26] J. Banhart, C. Schmoll, U. Neumann, Light-weight aluminium foam structures
for ships, in: Proceedings of the Conference on Materials in Oceanic Envi-
ronment, 1998.
[27] T. Mukai, et al., Experimental study of energy absorption in a close-celled
aluminum foam under dynamic loading, Scr. Mater. 40 (8) (1999).
[28] M. Smith, Z. Guan, W.J. Cantwell, Finite element modelling of the compres-
sive response of lattice structures manufactured using the selective laser
melting technique, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 67 (2013) 28e41.
[29] C. Yan, et al., Evaluation of light-weight AlSi10Mg periodic cellular lattice
structures fabricated via direct metal laser sintering, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 214 (4) (2014) 856e864.
[30] L.J. Gibson, Modelling the mechanical behavior of cellular materials, Mater.
Sci. Eng. A 110 (1989) 1e36.
[31] M. Ashby, The properties of foams and lattices, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math.
Phys. Eng. Sci. 364 (1838) (2005) 15e30.
[32] H.L. Fan, F.H. Meng, W. Yang, Sandwich panels with Kagome lattice cores
reinforced by carbon fibers, Compos. Struct. 81 (4) (2007) 533e539.
[33] G.W. Kooistra, V.S. Deshpande, H.N.G. Wadley, Compressive behavior of age
hardenable tetrahedral lattice truss structures made from aluminium, Acta
Mater. 52 (14) (2004) 4229e4237.
[34] D.T. Queheillalt, Y. Murty, H.N.G. Wadley, Mechanical properties of an
extruded pyramidal lattice truss sandwich structure, Scr. Mater. 58 (1)
(2008) 76e79.
[35] H. Fan, et al., Interlocked hierarchical lattice materials reinforced by woven
textile sandwich composites, Compos. Sci. Technol. 87 (2013) 142e148.
[36] H.-L. Fan, et al., Mechanics of advanced fiber reinforced lattice composites,
Acta Mech. Sinica 26 (6) (2010) 825e835.
[37] W. Li, et al., A novel carbon fiber reinforced lattice truss sandwich cylinder:
Fabrication and experiments, Compos. A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 81 (2016)
313e322.
[38] T. Wohlers, T. Gornet, History of additive manufacturing, in: Wohlers report,
2014 24, 2014, p. 118.
[39] G. Dong, Y. Tang, Y.F. Zhao, A Survey of Modeling of Lattice Structures
Fabricated by Additive Manufacturing, J. Mech. Des. 139 (10) (2017) 100906.
-100906-13.
[40] W. Brooks, et al., Rapid design and manufacture of ultralight cellular mate-
rials, in: Proceedings of the Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin,
TX, 2005.
[41] M. Leary, et al., Selective laser melting (SLM) of AlSi12Mg lattice structures,
Mater. Des. 98 (2016) 344e357.
[42] Z. Xiao, et al., Evaluation of topology-optimized lattice structures manufac-
tured via selective laser melting, Mater. Des. 143 (2018) 27e37.
[43] S. Xu, et al., Design of lattice structures with controlled anisotropy, Mater.
Des. 93 (2016) 443e447.
[44] V.S. Deshpande, N.A. Fleck, M.F. Ashby, Effective properties of the octet-truss
lattice material, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 49 (8) (2001) 1747e1769.
[45] M. Leary, et al., Inconel 625 lattice structures manufactured by selective laser
melting (SLM): Mechanical properties, deformation and failure modes,
Mater. Des. 157 (2018) 179e199.
[46] I. Maskery, et al., Insights into the mechanical properties of several triply
periodic minimal surface lattice structures made by polymer additive
manufacturing, Polymer 152 (2018) 62e71.
[47] C. Yan, et al., Advanced lightweight 316L stainless steel cellular lattice
structures fabricated via selective laser melting, Mater. Des. 55 (2014)
533e541.
[48] A.A. Zadpoor, Bone tissue regeneration: the role of scaffold geometry, Bio-
mater. Sci. 3 (2) (2015) 231e245.
[49] J.B. Berger, H.N.G. Wadley, R.M. McMeeking, Mechanical metamaterials at
the theoretical limit of isotropic elastic stiffness, Nature 543 (2017) 533.
[50] C. Bonatti, D. Mohr, Mechanical performance of additively-manufactured
anisotropic and isotropic smooth shell-lattice materials: Simulations & ex-
periments, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 122 (2019) 1e26.
[51] T. Tancogne-Dejean, et al., 3D Plate-Lattices: An Emerging Class of Low-
Density Metamaterial Exhibiting Optimal Isotropic Stiffness, Adv. Mater. 30
17
(45) (2018), 1803334.
[52] S.C. Han, J.W. Lee, K. Kang, A New Type of Low Density Material: Shellular,
Adv. Mater. 27 (37) (2015) 5506e5511.
[53] I. Gibson, D.W. Rosen, B. Stucker, Additive manufacturing technologies Vol.
17, Springer, 2014.
[54] I. Yadroitsev, P. Bertrand, I. Smurov, Parametric analysis of the selective laser
melting process, Appl. Surf. Sci. 253 (19) (2007) 8064e8069.
[55] O. Rehme, C. Emmelmann, Rapid manufacturing of lattice structures with
selective laser melting, in: Laser-based Micropackaging, International Society
for Optics and Photonics, 2006.
[56] L. Yuan, S. Ding, C. Wen, Additive manufacturing technology for porous metal
implant applications and triple minimal surface structures: A review,
Bioactive Mater. 4 (1) (2019) 56e70.
[57] K.G. Prashanth, et al., Microstructure and mechanical properties of Ale12Si
produced by selective laser melting: Effect of heat treatment, Mater. Sci. Eng.
A 590 (2014) 153e160.
[58] J.-P. Kruth, et al., Selective laser melting of iron-based powder, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 149 (1-3) (2004) 616e622.
[59] J.N. Domfang Ngnekou, et al., Influence of defect size on the fatigue resis-
tance of AlSi10Mg alloy elaborated by selective laser melting (SLM), Procedia
Struct. Integrity 7 (2017) 75e83.
[60] M. Hirsch, et al., Meso-scale defect evaluation of selective laser melting using
spatially resolved acoustic spectroscopy, Proc. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.
473 (2205) (2017), 20170194.
[61] E. Liverani, et al., Effect of selective laser melting (SLM) process parameters
on microstructure and mechanical properties of 316L austenitic stainless
steel, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 249 (2017) 255e263.
[62] A. Armillotta, R. Baraggi, S. Fasoli, SLM tooling for die casting with conformal
cooling channels, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 71 (1) (2014) 573e583.
[63] T. Hermann Becker, The achievable mechanical properties of SLM produced
Maraging Steel 300 components, Rapid Prototyp. J. 22 (3) (2016) 487e494.
[64] S. Tsopanos, et al., The Influence of Processing Parameters on the Mechanical
Properties of Selectively Laser Melted Stainless Steel Microlattice Structures,
J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 132 (4) (2010) 041011. -041011-12.
[65] R.R. Rashid, et al., A comparative study of flexural properties of additively
manufactured aluminium lattice structures, Mater. Today Proc. 4 (8) (2017)
8597e8604.
[66] P. Hanzl, et al., The Influence of Processing Parameters on the Mechanical
Properties of SLM Parts, Procedia Eng. 100 (2015) 1405e1413.
[67] M. Dallago, et al., Effect of the geometrical defectiveness on the mechanical
properties of SLM biomedical Ti6Al4V lattices, Procedia Struct. Integrity 13
(2018) 161e167.
[68] D. Kang, et al., Multi-lattice inner structures for high-strength and light-
weight in metal selective laser melting process, Mater. Des. 175 (2019),
107786.
[69] H.E. Burton, et al., The design of additively manufactured lattices to increase
the functionality of medical implants, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 94 (2019) 901e908.
[70] D.K. Pattanayak, et al., Bioactive Ti metal analogous to human cancellous
bone: fabrication by selective laser melting and chemical treatments, Acta
Biomater. 7 (3) (2011) 1398e1406.
[71] C. Yan, et al., Tie6Ale4V triply periodic minimal surface structures for bone
implants fabricated via selective laser melting, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed.
Mater. 51 (2015) 61e73.
[72] E. Sallica-Leva, A.L. Jardini, J.B. Fogagnolo, Microstructure and mechanical
behavior of porous Tie6Ale4V parts obtained by selective laser melting,
J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 26 (2013) 98e108.
[73] H. Lei, et al., Evaluation of compressive properties of SLM-fabricated multi-
layer lattice structures by experimental test and m-CT-based finite element
analysis, Mater. Des. 169 (2019), 107685.
[74] L. Mullen, et al., Selective Laser Melting: A regular unit cell approach for the
manufacture of porous, titanium, bone in-growth constructs, suitable for
orthopedic applications, J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 89 (2) (2009)
325e334.
[75] S. Arabnejad, et al., High-strength porous biomaterials for bone replacement:
A strategy to assess the interplay between cell morphology, mechanical
properties, bone ingrowth and manufacturing constraints, Acta Biomater. 30
(2016) 345e356.
[76] A. Ataee, et al., Ultrahigh-strength titanium gyroid scaffolds manufactured by
selective laser melting (SLM) for bone implant applications, Acta Mater. 158
(2018) 354e368.
[77] A. Sarker, et al., Rational Design of Additively Manufactured Ti6Al4V Im-
plants to Control Staphylococcus aureus Biofilm Formation, Materialia
(2019), 100250.
[78] J. Brennan-Craddock, et al., The design of impact absorbing structures for
additive manufacture, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 382 (2012), 012042.
[79] A. Subic, Materials in sports equipment, Woodhead Publishing, 2019.
[80] A. Owens, et al., Benefits of additive manufacturing for human exploration of
mars, in: 45th International Conference on Environmental Systems, 2015.
[81] N. Guo, M.C. Leu, Additive manufacturing: technology, applications and
research needs, Front. Mech. Eng. 8 (3) (2013) 215e243.
[82] Allied Market Research, Medical Implants Market Size, Share | Industry
Analysis 2022, Available from, https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/
medical-implants-market, 2019.
[83] H.E. Burton, et al., The design of additively manufactured lattices to increase
the functionality of medical implants, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 94 (2019) 901e908.
[84] L. Nickels, AM and aerospace: an ideal combination, Met. Powder Rep. 70 (6)
18 T. Maconachie et al. / Materials and Design 183 (2019) 108137
(2015) 300e303.
[85] J. Zhou, P. Shrotriya, W. Soboyejo, On the deformation of aluminum lattice
block structures: from struts to structures, Mech. Mater. 36 (8) (2004)
723e737.
[86] P. Koehnen, et al., Mechanical properties and deformation behavior of
additively manufactured lattice structures of stainless steel, Mater. Des. 145
(2018) 205e217.
[87] S. Babaee, et al., 3D soft metamaterials with negative Poisson’s ratio, Adv.
Mater. 25 (36) (2013) 5044e5049.
[88] E.B. Duoss, et al., Three-dimensional printing of elastomeric, cellular archi-
tectures with negative stiffness, Adv. Funct. Mater. 24 (31) (2014)
4905e4913.
[89] J.N. Grima, et al., Negative linear compressibility of hexagonal honeycombs
and related systems, Scr. Mater. 65 (7) (2011) 565e568.
[90] Q. Wang, et al., Lightweight mechanical metamaterials with tunable negative
thermal expansion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (17) (2016) 175901.
[91] X. Zheng, et al., Ultralight, ultrastiff mechanical metamaterials, Science 344
(6190) (2014) 1373e1377.
[92] H. Alsalla, L. Hao, C. Smith, Fracture toughness and tensile strength of 316L
stainless steel cellular lattice structures manufactured using the selective
laser melting technique, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 669 (2016) 1e6.
[93] M.F. Ashby, et al., Metal foams: a design guide, Elsevier, 2000.
[94] M. Mazur, et al., Mechanical properties of Ti6Al4V and AlSi12Mg lattice
structures manufactured by selective laser melting (SLM), in: Laser Additive
Manufacturing: Materials, Design, Technologies, and Applications, 2016,
pp. 119e161.
[95] L.J. Gibson, M.F. Ashby, Cellular solids: structure and properties, Cambridge
university press, 1999.
[96] M. Santorinaios, et al., Crush behaviour of open cellular lattice structures
manufactured using selective laser melting, WIT Trans. Built Environ. 85
(2006).
[97] S. Zhao, et al., The influence of cell morphology on the compressive fatigue
behavior of Ti-6Al-4V meshes fabricated by electron beam melting 59, 2016,
pp. 251e264.
[98] R. Wauthle, et al., Effects of build orientation and heat treatment on the
microstructure and mechanical properties of selective laser melted Ti6Al4V
lattice structures, Addit. Manuf. 5 (2015) 77e84.
[99] Kempen, K., et al. Process optimization and microstructural analysis for selec-
tive laser melting of AlSi10Mg.
[100] E. Brandl, et al., Additive manufactured AlSi10Mg samples using Selective
Laser Melting (SLM): Microstructure, high cycle fatigue, and fracture
behavior, Mater. Des. 34 (2012) 159e169.
[101] T. Niendorf, F. Brenne, M. Schaper, Lattice Structures Manufactured by SLM:
On the Effect of Geometrical Dimensions on Microstructure Evolution During
Processing, Metall. Mater. Trans. B 45 (4) (2014) 1181e1185.
[102] S.L. Sing, F.E. Wiria, W.Y. Yeong, Selective laser melting of lattice structures:
A statistical approach to manufacturability and mechanical behavior, Robot.
Comput. Integr. Manuf. 49 (2018) 170e180.
[103] P. Delroisse, et al., Effect of strut orientation on the microstructure hetero-
geneities in AlSi10Mg lattices processed by selective laser melting, Scr.
Mater. 141 (2017) 32e35.
[104] T.M. Mower, M.J. Long, Mechanical behavior of additive manufactured,
powder-bed laser-fused materials, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 651 (2016) 198e213.
[105] L. Thijs, et al., A study of the microstructural evolution during selective laser
melting of Tie6Ale4V, Acta Mater. 58 (9) (2010) 3303e3312.
[106] L. Murr, et al., Microstructure and mechanical behavior of Tie6Ale4V pro-
duced by rapid-layer manufacturing, for biomedical applications, J. Mech.
Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2 (1) (2009) 20e32.
[107] S. Li, G. Cui, Dependence of strength, elongation, and toughness on grain size
in metallic structural materials, J. Appl. Phys. 101 (8) (2007), 083525.
[108] Z. Li, et al., Metastable high-entropy dual-phase alloys overcome the
strength-ductility trade-off, Nature 534 (2016) 227.
[109] H. Gong, et al., Influence of defects on mechanical properties of Tie6Ale4 V
components produced by selective laser melting and electron beam melting,
Mater. Des. 86 (2015) 545e554.
[110] B. Vandenbroucke, J.-P. Kruth, Selective laser melting of biocompatible
metals for rapid manufacturing of medical parts, Rapid Prototyp. J. 13 (4)
(2007) 196e203.
[111] A. Sarker, et al., Angle defines attachment: Switching the biological response
to titanium interfaces by modifying the inclination angle during selective
laser melting, Mater. Des. 154 (2018) 326e339.
[112] S. Van Bael, et al., Micro-CT-based improvement of geometrical and me-
chanical controllability of selective laser melted Ti6Al4V porous structures,
Mater. Sci. Eng. A 528 (24) (2011) 7423e7431.
[113] M.A. Isa, I. Lazoglu, Five-axis additive manufacturing of freeform models
through buildup of transition layers, J. Manuf. Syst. 50 (2019) 69e80.
[114] M. McMillan, M. Leary, M. Brandt, Computationally efficient finite difference
method for metal additive manufacturing: A reduced-order DFAM tool
applied to SLM, Mater. Des. 132 (2017) 226e243.
[115] G. Pyka, et al., Surface Roughness and Morphology Customization of Additive
Manufactured Open Porous Ti6Al4V Structures, Materials 6 (10) (2013)
4737e4757.
[116] L. Liu, et al., Elastic and failure response of imperfect three-dimensional
metallic lattices: the role of geometric defects induced by Selective Laser
Melting, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 107 (2017) 160e184.
[117] M.R.K. Ravari, et al., On the effects of geometry, defects, and material
asymmetry on the mechanical response of shape memory alloy cellular
lattice structures, Smart Mater. Struct. 25 (2) (2016), 025008.
[118] M.R.K. Ravari, et al., Numerical investigation on mechanical properties of
cellular lattice structures fabricated by fused deposition modeling, Int. J.
Mech. Sci. 88 (2014) 154e161.
[119] B. Lozanovski, et al., Computational modelling of strut defects in SLM man-
ufactured lattice structures, Mater. Des. 171 (2019), 107671.
[120] F. Concli, A. Gilioli, Numerical and experimental assessment of the me-
chanical properties of 3D printed 18-Ni300 steel trabecular structures pro-
duced by Selective Laser Melting e a lean design approach, Virtual Phys.
Prototyping 14 (3) (2019) 267e276.
[121] Y. Amani, et al., Compression behavior of lattice structures produced by
selective laser melting: X-ray tomography based experimental and finite
element approaches, Acta Mater. 159 (2018) 395e407.
[122] G. Campoli, et al., Mechanical properties of open-cell metallic biomaterials
manufactured using additive manufacturing, Mater. Des. 49 (2013) 957e965.
[123] S. McKown, et al., The quasi-static and blast loading response of lattice
structures, Int. J. Impact Eng. 35 (8) (2008) 795e810.
[124] M. Yakout, M.A. Elbestawi, S.C. Veldhuis, Density and mechanical properties
in selective laser melting of Invar 36 and stainless steel 316L, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 266 (2019) 397e420.
[125] R. Gümrük, R.A.W. Mines, Compressive behaviour of stainless steel micro-
lattice structures, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 68 (2013) 125e139.
[126] M. Mazur, et al., 5 - Mechanical properties of Ti6Al4V and AlSi12Mg lattice
structures manufactured by Selective Laser Melting (SLM), in: M. Brandt
(Ed.), Laser Additive Manufacturing, Woodhead Publishing, 2017,
pp. 119e161.
[127] S. Amin Yavari, et al., Fatigue behavior of porous biomaterials manufactured
using selective laser melting, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 33 (8) (2013) 4849e4858.
[128] ASM Aerospace Specification Metals Inc, ASM Material Data Sheet - Inconel
625, Available from, http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?
bassnum¼NINC33, 2019.
[129] Alloy Wire International, Inconel® 625 - Alloy Wire International, Available
from, https://www.alloywire-au.com/products/inconel-625/, 2019.
[130] ASM Aerospace Specification Metals Inc, ASM Material Data Sheet - Ti6Al4V,
Available from, http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?
bassnum¼mtp641, 2019.
[131] ASM Aerospace Specification Metals Inc, ASM Material Data Sheet - 316L
Stainless Steel, Available from, http://asm.matweb.com/search/
SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum¼mq316q, 2019.
[132] GPI Prototype & Manufacturing Services, AlSi10Mg Material Data Sheet,
Available from: https://gpiprototype.com/pdf/EOS_Aluminium_AlSi10Mg_
en.pdf, 2019.
[133] C.G. Ferro, et al., Lattice structured impact absorber with embedded anti-
icing system for aircraft wings fabricated with additive SLM process,
Mater. Today Commun. 15 (2018) 185e189.
[134] C. Yan, et al., Evaluations of cellular lattice structures manufactured using
selective laser melting, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 62 (2012) 32e38.
[135] M.H. Luxner, J. Stampfl, H.E. Pettermann, Finite element modeling concepts
and linear analyses of 3D regular open cell structures, J. Mater. Sci. 40 (22)
(2005) 5859e5866.
[136] I. Maskery, et al., An investigation into reinforced and functionally graded
lattice structures, J. Cell. Plast. 53 (2) (2016) 151e165.
[137] S.Y. Choy, et al., Compressive properties of functionally graded lattice
structures manufactured by selective laser melting, Mater. Des. 131 (2017)
112e120.
[138] K.-U. Bletzinger, E. Ramm, Structural optimization and form finding of light
weight structures, Comput. Struct. 79 (22-25) (2001) 2053e2062.
[139] C.B. Pedersen, Topology optimization design of crushed 2D-frames for
desired energy absorption history, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 25 (5-6) (2003)
368e382.
[140] I. Maskery, et al., A mechanical property evaluation of graded density Al-
Si10-Mg lattice structures manufactured by selective laser melting, Mater.
Sci. Eng. A 670 (2016) 264e274.
[141] A. Panesar, et al., Strategies for functionally graded lattice structures derived
using topology optimisation for Additive Manufacturing, Addit. Manuf. 19
(2018) 81e94.