Lattice Is Not a Texture. It Is an Engineering Decision.

If you have spent any time looking at 3D-printed parts on LinkedIn or at trade shows, you have seen the visual: a component riddled with a repeating geometric pattern, triangles or octet cells filling the internal volume. It looks impressive. It photographs well. It signals that additive manufacturing was involved.

But in many cases, that lattice is doing very little engineering work. It is decoration. And decoration has a cost.

What a lattice actually does

A lattice structure, properly designed and applied, is one of the most powerful tools in additive manufacturing. It allows mass to be removed from regions of a component where stress is low, while preserving or reinforcing material exactly where the load demands it. Done correctly, it can reduce part mass by 30 to 60 percent with no meaningful loss in structural performance.

But that outcome depends entirely on the inputs: a proper FEA (finite element analysis) of the load cases, a clear understanding of the failure modes, a selection of lattice geometry matched to the stress state, and a build strategy that does not compromise the lattice through unsupported overhangs or residual stress.

Without those inputs, a lattice is a guess. And a structural guess in a flight-critical bracket, a surgical instrument, or a high-cycle automotive component is not a risk worth taking.

The case that taught us the most

We worked on a representative case in the motorsport space: a multi-part structural bracket assembly that was being considered for additive manufacturing to reduce lap weight. The initial proposal from another supplier was to take the existing CAD, hollow it out with a standard octet lattice, and print it in AlSi10Mg using SLS.

The result would have been lighter. It also would have failed.

The load path through that assembly was not uniform. One interface carried the dominant bending moment. Another was primarily in tension. A third saw significant vibration-induced fatigue cycling. A uniform lattice applied across the whole volume would have left excess material in the tension region and gutted the bending-critical zone.

The correct approach — which we developed through a simulation-led DfAM process — was a topology-optimised base geometry, with a graded lattice applied selectively in the low-stress regions and solid wall sections maintained at all critical interfaces. The result was a consolidated single-piece component, 43% lighter than the original assembly, with demonstrably superior stiffness in the primary load direction and a clean surface finish at all mating interfaces.

The lesson is not that lattices are dangerous. The lesson is that lattices are a precision instrument, not a visual treatment.

How we approach lattice design at BAMS 3D

Every lattice structure we produce begins with simulation. We define the load cases, identify the critical failure modes, and use topology optimisation to establish where material should and should not be. The lattice geometry — cell type, cell size, strut diameter, grading strategy — is then selected based on that analysis, not based on what looks good in a render.

We work with German manufacturing partners to validate that the build strategy can actually produce the lattice geometry to the required dimensional accuracy. Minimum strut diameters, powder removal, post-processing — all of these constrain what is achievable, and all of them are part of the design conversation from the start.

If you are evaluating a part for lattice-based lightweighting, the first question to ask is not which lattice pattern. It is: where does the load go, and what does failure look like?

If you do not have clear answers to those questions, bring us in before the geometry is defined. That is where we add the most value.

— Swaroop Bodapati, Founder, BAMS 3D