Heterogeneous porous scaffold generation in trivariate B-spline solid with triply periodic minimal surface in the parametric domain

Chuanfeng Hu; Hongwei Lin

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Heterogeneous porous scaffold generation in trivariate B-spline solid with triply periodic minimal surface in the parametric domain

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A trivariate B-spline solid can carry a heterogeneous porous scaffold by mapping a triply periodic minimal surface from the parametric domain, yielding complete, continuous pore units with porosity set by a threshold distribution field.

desk verdict The construction is sound and the completeness/continuity claims are real, but the porosity-control claim is not measured in the mapped scaffolds and needs validation before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01938 v1 pith:ZYJ34F6U submitted 2019-08-06 cs.GR

Chuanfeng Hu , Hongwei Lin This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.GR

keywords heterogeneousporousscaffoldtrivariateB-splinesolidtriplyperiodicminimalsurfacethresholddistributionfieldparametricdomainporositycontrolTDFfileformatcompletenessandcontinuity

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper develops a method for building heterogeneous porous scaffolds inside a trivariate B-spline solid (TBSS). Instead of embedding a TPMS directly in the physical shape or mapping one unit into each hexahedron of a mesh, it constructs a threshold distribution field (TDF) in the cubic parameter domain, generates a single connected TPMS there, and maps it through the TBSS function into the physical solid. Because the whole scaffold comes from one unitary parametric surface, the resulting pore units are complete at the boundary and continuously stitched between neighbours, and the TDF lets a user control pore size locally. If correct, this removes two known defects of prior TPMS scaffold methods and introduces a compact parametric file format that stores a scaffold in about one megabyte instead of hundreds.

What carries the argument

The threshold distribution field (TDF), a trivariate B-spline function $C(u,v,w)$ fitted by least-squares progressive-iteration approximation (LSPIA) on a parametric grid, is the control mechanism: it converts the constant threshold in the TPMS equation into a spatially varying one, so the iso-surface $\psi=C$ becomes a heterogeneous surface whose local pore size follows the field. The second element is the mapping through the TBSS function $P(u,v,w)$, which carries the parametric TPMS into the physical solid; a positive Jacobian of the TBSS ensures the map is fold-free, which is what preserves completeness and continuity in the final scaffold.

What would settle it

Measure the actual porosity of a mapped scaffold, for example by voxelizing the final triangular mesh and counting the solid fraction, and compare it with the porosity predicted from the TDF calibration curves; if the mismatch exceeds a practical tolerance across a strongly deformed TBSS region, the porosity-control claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a heterogeneous porous scaffold with complete, continuous TPMS units is produced by defining the TPMS in the parameter domain of a TBSS and mapping it to the physical domain. The TPMS is given implicitly by $f(u,v,w)=\psi(u,v,w)-C(u,v,w)=0$, where $\psi$ is a nodal approximation of a TPMS and $C$ is a trivariate B-spline TDF whose values set local pore size; the scaffold is the image of the volume bounded by this surface under the TBSS mapping. Completeness follows because the parametric TPMS is a single surface covering the whole domain, so no unit is cut off at the boundary, and continuity follows because adjacent 'units' are just portions of that same surface. The paper further claims the TDF file format—storing period coefficients, TDF control points and knots, and TBSS control points and knots—reproduces the scaffold at any resolution and cuts storage by roughly two orders of magnitude compared with STL.

Load-bearing premise

The porosity-versus-threshold curves measured on the uniform parametric grid are assumed to still give the correct porosity after the TPMS is deformed through the trivariate B-spline solid into the physical shape, but the paper never measures the porosity of the final mapped scaffolds to check.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any TBSS with positive Jacobian can be turned into a heterogeneous scaffold whose TPMS units are complete and continuous, eliminating the two reported defects of hexahedral-mesh and T-spline embedding methods.
Pore size becomes a design variable: editing the TDF in the parameter domain, for example by local LSPIA updates, rebuilds the scaffold locally without redoing the whole generation.
The TDF file format stores the scaffold parametrically, so the same file can generate meshes at any prescribed precision, and storage drops from hundreds of megabytes to about one megabyte.
The same pipeline extends to pore, rod, and sheet structure types and to P, D, G, and I-WP TPMSs, provided the threshold stays in the valid range for that surface.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the porosity calibration curves are not re-verified in the deformed physical domain, the quantitative porosity-control claim may fail under strong TBSS distortion; a natural extension is to measure porosity of the mapped scaffold and adjust the TDF-to-threshold mapping accordingly.
The parametric storage suggests a design-optimization loop in which the TDF control points and period coefficients act as free parameters, letting an optimizer tune pore-size distribution without ever exporting a mesh.
The same 'generate in parameter space, map to solid' trick could work for other implicit structures, such as Voronoi-like level sets or lattice functions, not only TPMSs, whenever the solid is given as a spline volume.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the geometric construction is sound, and the completeness and continuity benefits are real and follow from the construction. But the paper's headline quantitative claim—that porosity is controlled by the TDF—is not actually measured in the final physical scaffolds, and the calibration curves as presented don't transfer to a deformed domain.

What's new: defining the TPMS in the parametric domain of a trivariate B-spline solid, with a B-spline-fitted threshold distribution field, is a clean way to avoid broken TPMS units at boundaries and discontinuities between tiled units. The local modification workflow and the TDF file format are practical contributions. Storing control points and knot vectors instead of a giant STL mesh is a legitimate compact representation, and the regeneration times in Table 2 look acceptable.

Soft spots, in order of size. First, the porosity control claim. Figures 4-6 are calibration curves computed on a uniform grid in the flat parametric cube. Once the TPMS is mapped through a non-affine TBSS, physical volume fractions are weighted by the local Jacobian. Unless |J| is constant or the calibration is redone in physical space, those curves don't predict the porosity of the mapped scaffold. The paper never reports the porosity of the final scaffolds in Figs. 13-17, so the central quantitative claim is not established. The B-spline fit of the TDF adds another unquantified error. Second, the storage comparison is apples-to-oranges: STL is a boundary mesh, while TDF is a procedural representation that must be re-meshed. That is a fair trade-off if stated, but Table 2 presents them as equal formats. Third, there is no code or data, which makes replication harder, though the pipeline is clearly described.

The paper is for researchers in CAD/geometric modeling and TPMS-based scaffold design. It deserves a serious referee, and I would send it out, but with a request for porosity validation on at least one mapped scaffold—using Jacobian-weighted volume fractions—and a more honest storage comparison.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method for generating heterogeneous porous scaffolds inside a trivariate B-spline solid (TBSS). The key idea is to construct a threshold distribution field (TDF) C(u,v,w) over the cubic parameter domain of the TBSS, define a TPMS as the level set ψ(u,v,w) = C(u,v,w), polygonize it with marching tetrahedra, and map the resulting surface and volume structures through the TBSS to obtain a porous scaffold. The authors claim three main contributions: (1) guaranteed completeness of TPMS units and continuity between them, (2) easy porosity control via the TDF, and (3) a compact 'TDF' file format that stores the scaffold as a procedural representation rather than a mesh. The paper includes several examples (ball joint, Venus, Moai, tooth, Isis) and a comparison with two prior methods, claiming storage savings of at least 98% over STL. The completeness and continuity claims are argued from the positive-Jacobian mapping of a unitary TPMS, and the storage format is presented with an appendix. However, the paper does not quantitatively verify that the porosity of the final mapped scaffolds matches the intended TDF-derived distribution.

Significance. If the claims are validated, the method would address three recognized drawbacks of TPMS-based scaffold design: broken boundary units, discontinuities between adjacent units, and large file sizes. The parametric-domain construction with a positive-Jacobian TBSS mapping is a conceptually clean way to guarantee completeness and continuity, and the procedural TDF file format is a practical contribution that could benefit downstream fabrication and interactive design. The local TDF modification workflow adds useful flexibility. The porosity-control claim, however, is the central quantitative assertion of the paper, and it is currently supported only by calibration curves computed on a uniform parametric domain, with no measured verification on the deformed physical scaffolds. The absence of such validation leaves the primary contribution only partially established, though the issue appears addressable with additional experiments or a Jacobian-aware calibration.

major comments (3)

[§3.2, Figs. 4-6, Eq. (4)] The porosity-threshold calibration curves in Figs. 4-6 are computed for a uniform cubic cell in the parametric domain. After mapping through the TBSS (Eq. (2)), the physical volume fraction of the set {ψ ≥ C} is ∫_{ψ≥C} |J| du dv dw / ∫ |J| du dv dw, where |J| is the Jacobian determinant. For a TBSS with non-constant Jacobian, the calibration curves do not directly predict physical porosity. The paper never reports the measured porosity of the final scaffolds in Figs. 13-17 or compares it with the intended TDF-derived distribution, so the claim that porosity is controlled by the TDF is not quantitatively established. Please provide physical-domain porosity measurements (e.g., by voxelizing the mapped scaffold and computing the volume fraction) for the presented examples, or alternatively restrict the method to TBSSs with constant Jacobian, or provide a Jacobian-corrected calibration procedure.
[§3.2, Eqs. (5)-(10)] The TDF is obtained by least-squares progressive-iteration approximation (LSPIA) fitting of discrete threshold values on a 50×50×50 grid with a 20×20×20 control grid. The fitting error is not quantified. Since the TPMS is defined by ψ(u,v,w) - C(u,v,w) = 0, approximation errors in C directly shift the level surface and hence change the porosity. The convergence proof cited in [28] does not provide a concrete error bound for this particular fitting problem. The paper should report the fitting error (e.g., max and RMS error between the fitted B-spline and the discrete TDF) and, if possible, analyze its impact on the resulting porosity.
[§3.4 and Appendix] The proposed TDF file format as described stores the period coefficients, the control points and knot vectors of the TDF, and the control points and knot vectors of the TBSS, but it does not store the TPMS type (P, D, G, or I-WP) or the structure type (pore, rod, or sheet). These fields are essential for reconstructing the scaffold from the file; without them the same stored data could produce different scaffolds. The format appendix should be completed by adding these fields, and the text in §3.4 should list them as part of the stored information.

minor comments (5)

[§3.2] The computation method for the porosity-threshold curves in Figs. 4-6 is not stated (e.g., voxel grid resolution, or whether the volume fraction is computed from the marching-tetrahedra mesh or by numerical integration). Please state the method for reproducibility.
[§3.2, Eq. (8)] The notation in Eq. (8) is confusing: the index set Iαβγ is defined by the condition Ni,p(uα)Nj,q(vβ)Nk,r(wγ) ≠ 0, but the summation uses I ∈ Iαβγ and evaluates the basis functions at (uI, vI, wI). The set should be defined as the set of grid nodes in the support of the (i,j,k)-th basis function, and the sum should run over those nodes. Please clarify the notation.
[§3.1] The closing procedure for volume structures adds 'outside triangles' on the boundary faces when all vertices satisfy ψ ≥ C. This works if the iso-surface ψ = C does not pass through grid vertices; otherwise ambiguous cases may arise. A short comment on this assumption or a note on handling degenerate cases would be useful.
[§4.1] The statement 'The larger the value of C(u,v,w), the larger the pore size' is valid for pore structures but is reversed for rod structures. Please qualify the statement to avoid ambiguity.
[Throughout] Several typographical errors and formatting issues need correction, including 'compeleteness' in Section 3, 'ja:math' in reference [21], and inconsistent spacing in equations. A careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the TDF, TPMS, and TBSS mapping are design inputs and constructions, not predictions fitted to or defined by their outputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is constructive: the user or geometry prescribes discrete threshold values; LSPIA fits these into a B-spline TDF; the TPMS is defined by f = psi(u,v,w) - C(u,v,w) = 0 in the parameter domain; marching tetrahedra polygonizes this level set; and the positive-Jacobian TBSS mapping transfers the parametric volume TPMS structure to physical space. Every step uses externally established mathematical tools (nodal TPMS approximations from Ref. [4], marching tetrahedra from Ref. [23], LSPIA convergence from Ref. [28]). The porosity/threshold curves in Figs. 4-6 are computed from the defining level-set relation rather than fitted to data, so no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The completeness and continuity claims follow from mapping a single unitary parametric TPMS through a bijective, positive-Jacobian TBSS, not from matching any measured output. The TDF file format comparison against STL is a direct storage measurement. The only self-citation, Ref. [28] (LSPIA), is used as an approximation subroutine; the central claims do not reduce to that citation, and its convergence result is independent published mathematics. A legitimate empirical concern remains: physical porosity after mapping is not measured, and the parametric calibration does not account for the Jacobian weight in the physical volume integral, so the quantitative porosity claim is not validated in the deformed solid. That is a correctness/validation gap, not a circularity, and it does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The TDF is a user-defined scalar field, not an entity with independent physical evidence.

free parameters (3)

Period coefficients (omega_x, omega_y, omega_z) = Per model: e.g., (16,14,18) for Ball joint, (10,10,10) for Venus
Chosen by the user to set TPMS unit sizes in each parametric direction; values for the five examples are listed in Table 2. They are design inputs, not fitted to a target, but they directly determine scaffold topology.
Parametric grid resolutions = 100x100x100 for polygonization; 50x50x50 for TDF discretization; 20x20x20 for TDF control grid
Implementation choices that trade off accuracy and storage; not justified against error bounds.
Valid threshold ranges = P: [-0.8,0.8], D: [-0.6,0.6], G: [-0.8,0.8], I-WP: [-2.0,2.0]
Taken from prior literature (Ref. [4]) as the domain in which the TPMS is complete.

assumptions (4)

standard math B-spline basis functions and LSPIA fitting converge to a least-squares fit (Ref. [20,28]).
Used to represent the TBSS and to fit the discrete TDF in Section 3.2.
domain assumption The nodal approximations of the four TPMS types (Table 1) and their valid C ranges are accurate enough for scaffold design.
Taken from von Schnering and Nesper (Ref. [4]); the valid range is invoked to guarantee completeness of the TPMS.
domain assumption The input TBSS has positive Jacobian in its parametric domain (Section 3.3).
Needed so the mapping from parameter space to physical space does not fold over and produce invalid geometry.
domain assumption The marching tetrahedra algorithm on a 100x100x100 grid captures the TPMS topology at a resolution acceptable for the examples.
The resolution choice is stated but no convergence study is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Heterogeneous porous scaffold generation in trivariate B-spline solid with triply periodic minimal surface in the parametric domain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZYJ34F6U

@misc{pith2026190801938,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Heterogeneous porous scaffold generation in trivariate B-spline solid with triply periodic minimal surface in the parametric domain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZYJ34F6U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01938}
}

read the original abstract

A porous scaffold is a three-dimensional network structure composed of a large number of pores, and triply periodic minimal surfaces (TPMSs) are one of conventional tools for designing porous scaffolds. However, discontinuity, incompleteness, and high storage space requirements are the three main shortcomings of TPMSs for porous scaffold design. In this study, we developed an effective method for heterogeneous porous scaffold generation to overcome the abovementioned shortcomings of TPMSs. The input of the proposed method is a trivariate B-spline solid (TBSS) with a cubic parameter domain. The proposed method first constructs a threshold distribution field (TDF) in the cubic parameter domain, and then produces a continuous and complete TPMS within it. Moreover, by mapping the TPMS in the parametric domain to the TBSS, a continuous and complete porous scaffold is generated in the TBSS. In addition, if the TBSS does not satisfy engineering requirements, the TDF can be locally modified in the parameter domain, and the porous scaffold in the TBSS can be rebuilt. We also defined a new storage space-saving file format based on the TDF to store porous scaffolds. The experimental results presented in this paper demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the method using a TBSS as well as the superior space-saving of the proposed storage format.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01938 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The procedure of the heterogenous porous scaffold generation method. Now, we elucidate the techniques for generating the discrete TDF. Filling method. Initially, all of the values at the parameter grid vertices are set to 0. Then, the geometric quantities at points of the boundary surface of TBSS, such as mean curvature, Gauss curvature, are calculated and mapped to the boundary vertices of the parametric grid. Fu… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Three types of volume TPMS structures for the four types of TPMS units. (a)(b)(c)(d) Pore structures for the P-type, D-type, G-type and I-WP-type TPMSs. (e)(f)(g)(h) Rod structures for the P-type, D-type, G-type and I-WP-type TPMSs. (i)(j)(k)(l) Sheet structures for the P-type, D-type, G-type and I-WP-type TPMSs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (12 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Relationship between the threshold C and the porosity of the four types of TPMSs based on rod structures. Suppose the LSPIA iteration has been performed for l steps, 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Relationship between the threshold C and the porosity of the four types of TPMSs based on sheet structures. (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Filling method. (a) Mean curvature distribution on the TBSS boundary surface. (b) Mean curvature distribution on the boundary vertices of the parametric grid. and the l th B-spline function C (l) (u, v,w) is constructed: C (l) (u, v,w) = Xnu i=0 Xnv j=0 Xnw k=0 Ni,p(u)…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Local modification of TDF. (a) TDF generated by the layer method. (b) TDF after local modification. 3.3. Generation of heterogeneous porous scaffold in TBSS Until now, there was only one unknown in the heterogeneous porous scaffold generation: the period coefficients ω…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Generation of the TPMSs (with their three-view drawing) (a,b,c,d) based on the corresponding TDF in the parametric domain (e,f,g,h). Note that the porosity of the TPMS is controlled by the TDF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Generation of heterogeneous porous scaffold. (a) TPMS in the parametric domain. (b) Heterogeneous porous scaffold in the TBSS. (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Influence of threshold on the heterogeneity of scaffold. (a) TDF generated by the layer method. (b) Heterogenous porous scaffold (P-type, pore structure), produced based on the TDF in (a). linear mesh models. However, the TDF file format stores a trivariate B-spline f…

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Heterogeneous porous scaffold of Ball-joint. (a) TBSS. (b) TDF in the parametric domain. (c) P-type pore structure. (d) P-type rod structure. (e) P-type sheet structure. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Heterogeneous porous scaffold of Venus. (a) TBSS. (b) TDF in the parametric domain. (c) D-type pore structure. (d) D-type rod structure. (e) D-type sheet structure. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Heterogeneous porous scaffold of Moai. (a) TBSS. (b) TDF in the parametric domain. (c) I-WP-type pore structure. (d) I-WP-type rod structure. (e) I-WP-type sheet structure. [3] A. Y¢nez, A. Cuadrado, O. Martel, H. Afonso, D. Monopoli, Gyroid porous titanium structures…

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Heterogeneous porous scaffold of Tooth. (a) TBSS. (b) TDF in the parametric domain. (c) G-type pore structure. (d) G-type rod structure. (e) G-type sheet structure. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_16.png]

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Heterogeneous porous scaffold of Isis. (a) TBSS. (b) TDF in the parametric domain. (c) P-type pore structure. (d) P-type rod structure. (e) P-type sheet structure. 34 (5) (2012) 625–639. [7] N. Yang, K. Zhou, Effective method for multi-scale gradient porous scaffold d…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[28]

C. Deng, H. Lin, Progressive and iterative approximation for least squares b-spline curve and surface ﬁtting, Computer-Aided Design 47 (1) (2014) 32–44. Appendix: TDF ﬁle format #period coeﬃcients(ωx,ω y,ω z) ωxωyωz #resolution of control grid of TDF nu + 1 nv + 1 nw + 1 #control points of TDF C0,0,0 C0,0,1 ... Cnu,nv,nw #knot vector in u-direction of TDF...

work page 2014
[1]

D. W. Hutmacher, Sca ﬀolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage., Biomaterials 21 (24) (2000) 2529–2543

work page 2000
[2]

Starly, C

B. Starly, C. Gomez, A. Darling, Z. Fang, A. Lau, W. Sun, W. Lau, T. Bradbury, A. Youssef, C. Gaylo, Computer-aided bone sca ﬀold de- sign: a biomimetic approach, in: 2003 IEEE 29th Annual Proceedings of Bioengineering Conference, 2003, pp. 172–173. 9 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Figure 13: Heterogeneous porous scaﬀold of Ball-joint. (a) TBSS. (b) TDF in the param...

work page 2003
[3]

Y¢nez, A

A. Y¢nez, A. Cuadrado, O. Martel, H. Afonso, D. Monopoli, Gyroid porous titanium structures: A versatile solution to be used as sca ﬀolds in bone defect reconstruction, Materials & Design 140 (2018) 21–29

work page 2018
[4]

H. G. V . Schnering, R. Nesper, Nodal surfaces of fourier series: Funda- mental invariants of structured matter, Zeitschrift Fr Physik B Condensed Matter 83 (3) (1991) 407–412

work page 1991
[5]

Yoo, Porous sca ﬀold design using the distance ﬁeld and triply periodic minimal surface models, Biomaterials 32 (31) (2011) 7741–7754

D. Yoo, Porous sca ﬀold design using the distance ﬁeld and triply periodic minimal surface models, Biomaterials 32 (31) (2011) 7741–7754

work page 2011
[6]

D. Yoo, Heterogeneous minimal surface porous sca ﬀold design using the distance ﬁeld and radial basis functions, Medical Engineering & Physics 10 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Figure 16: Heterogeneous porous sca ﬀold of Tooth. (a) TBSS. (b) TDF in the parametric domain. (c) G-type pore structure. (d) G-type rod structure. (e) G-type sheet structure. (a) (b) (c) (d)...

work page 2012
[7]

N. Yang, K. Zhou, E ﬀective method for multi-scale gradient porous scaﬀold design and fabrication., Materials Science & Engineering C 43 (2014) 502–505

work page 2014

Show all 28 references

[8]

J. Feng, J. Fu, C. Shang, Z. Lin, B. Li, Porous sca ﬀold design by solid t-splines and triply periodic minimal surfaces, Computer Methods in Ap- plied Mechanics & Engineering 336 (2018) 333–352

2018
[9]

D. Yoo, Computer-aided porous sca ﬀold design for tissue engineering us- ing triply periodic minimal surfaces, International Journal of Precision Engineering & Manufacturing 12 (1) (2011) 61–71

2011
[10]

H. Chen, Y . Guo, R. Rostami, S. Fan, K. Tang, Z. Yu, Porous structure de- sign using parameterized hexahedral meshes and triply periodic minimal surfaces, in: Proceedings of Computer Graphics International 2018, CGI 2018, Bintan Island, Indonesia, June 11-14, 2018, ACM Press,...

2018
[11]

J. Shi, L. Zhu, L. Li, Z. Li, J. Yang, X. Wang, A tpms-based method for modeling porous scaﬀolds for bionic bone tissue engineering, Scientiﬁc Reports 8 (1) (2018) 7395

2018
[12]

Rajagopalan, R

S. Rajagopalan, R. A. Robb, Schwarz meets schwann: design and fabrica- tion of biomorphic tissue engineering scaﬀolds., Medical Image Analysis 10 (5) (2006) 693–712

2006
[13]

F. P. Melchels, K. Bertoldi, R. Gabbrielli, A. H. Velders, J. Feijen, D. W. Grijpma, Mathematically deﬁned tissue engineering sca ﬀold architec- tures prepared by stereolithography., Biomaterials 31 (27) (2010) 6909– 6916

2010
[14]

T. J. R. Hughes, J. A. Cottrell, Y . Bazilevs, Isogeometric analysis: Cad, ﬁnite elements, nurbs, exact geometry and mesh reﬁnement, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics & Engineering 194 (39) (2005) 4135– 4195

2005
[15]

Zhang, Y

Y . Zhang, Y . Bazilevs, S. Goswami, C. L. Bajaj, T. J. Hughes, Patient- speciﬁc vascular NURBS modeling for isogeometric analysis of blood ﬂow, Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering 196 (29) (2007) 2943–2959

2007
[16]

Martin, E

T. Martin, E. Cohen, R. M. Kirby, V olumetric parameterization and trivariate b-spline ﬁtting using harmonic functions, Computer Aided Ge- ometric Design 26 (6) (2009) 648–664

2009
[17]

Aigner, C

M. Aigner, C. Heinrich, B. Jttler, E. Pilgerstorfer, B. Simeon, A. V . Vuong, Swept volume parameterization for isogeometric analysis, in: Mathematics of Surfaces XIII, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Hei- delberg, 2009, pp. 19–44

2009
[18]

X. Wang, X. Qian, An optimization approach for constructing trivariate b-spline solids, Computer-Aided Design 46 (1) (2014) 179–191

2014
[19]

H. Lin, S. Jin, Q. Hu, Z. Liu, Constructing b-spline solids from tetrahedral meshes for isogeometric analysis, Computer Aided Geometric Design 35- 36 (2015) 109–120

2015
[20]

Piegl, Les, W

A. Piegl, Les, W. Tiller, The NURBS Book, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1997

1997
[21]

P. J. F. Gandy, S. Bardhan, A. L. Mackay, J. Klinowski, Nodal surface 11 approximations to the ja:math and i-wp triply periodic minimal surfaces, Chemical Physics Letters 336 (3) (2001) 187–195

2001
[22]

Yan, Periodic surface modeling for computer aided nano design, Computer-Aided Design 39 (3) (2007) 179–189

W. Yan, Periodic surface modeling for computer aided nano design, Computer-Aided Design 39 (3) (2007) 179–189

2007
[23]

A. Doi, A. Koide, An e ﬃcient method of triangulating equivalued sur- faces by using tetrahedral cells, Ieice Trans 74 (1) (1991) 214–224

1991
[24]

P. L. George, H. Borouchaki, Delaunay Triangulation and Meshing, Paris: ´Edition Herm`es, 1998

1998
[25]

W. E. Lorensen, H. E. Cline, Marching cubes: A high resolution 3d sur- face construction algorithm, Acm Siggraph Computer Graphics 21 (4) (1987) 163–169

1987
[26]

T. S. Newman, H. Yi, A survey of the marching cubes algorithm, Com- puters & Graphics 30 (5) (2006) 854–879

2006
[27]

D. A. Field, Laplacian smoothing and delaunay triangulations, Commu- nications in Applied Numerical Methods 4 (6) (1988) 709–712

1988

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [28]

C. Deng, H. Lin, Progressive and iterative approximation for least squares b-spline curve and surface ﬁtting, Computer-Aided Design 47 (1) (2014) 32–44. Appendix: TDF ﬁle format #period coeﬃcients(ωx,ω y,ω z) ωxωyωz #resolution of control grid of TDF nu + 1 nv + 1 nw + 1 #control points of TDF C0,0,0 C0,0,1 ... Cnu,nv,nw #knot vector in u-direction of TDF...

work page 2014

[2] [1]

D. W. Hutmacher, Sca ﬀolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage., Biomaterials 21 (24) (2000) 2529–2543

work page 2000

[3] [2]

Starly, C

B. Starly, C. Gomez, A. Darling, Z. Fang, A. Lau, W. Sun, W. Lau, T. Bradbury, A. Youssef, C. Gaylo, Computer-aided bone sca ﬀold de- sign: a biomimetic approach, in: 2003 IEEE 29th Annual Proceedings of Bioengineering Conference, 2003, pp. 172–173. 9 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Figure 13: Heterogeneous porous scaﬀold of Ball-joint. (a) TBSS. (b) TDF in the param...

work page 2003

[4] [3]

Y¢nez, A

A. Y¢nez, A. Cuadrado, O. Martel, H. Afonso, D. Monopoli, Gyroid porous titanium structures: A versatile solution to be used as sca ﬀolds in bone defect reconstruction, Materials & Design 140 (2018) 21–29

work page 2018

[5] [4]

H. G. V . Schnering, R. Nesper, Nodal surfaces of fourier series: Funda- mental invariants of structured matter, Zeitschrift Fr Physik B Condensed Matter 83 (3) (1991) 407–412

work page 1991

[6] [5]

Yoo, Porous sca ﬀold design using the distance ﬁeld and triply periodic minimal surface models, Biomaterials 32 (31) (2011) 7741–7754

D. Yoo, Porous sca ﬀold design using the distance ﬁeld and triply periodic minimal surface models, Biomaterials 32 (31) (2011) 7741–7754

work page 2011

[7] [6]

D. Yoo, Heterogeneous minimal surface porous sca ﬀold design using the distance ﬁeld and radial basis functions, Medical Engineering & Physics 10 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Figure 16: Heterogeneous porous sca ﬀold of Tooth. (a) TBSS. (b) TDF in the parametric domain. (c) G-type pore structure. (d) G-type rod structure. (e) G-type sheet structure. (a) (b) (c) (d)...

work page 2012

[8] [7]

N. Yang, K. Zhou, E ﬀective method for multi-scale gradient porous scaﬀold design and fabrication., Materials Science & Engineering C 43 (2014) 502–505

work page 2014