## 4 Discussion  
If one examines the charts (Figures 11 and 12) closely, the mechanical response increases as the height of the parabola extending decreases. Besides, maximum forces are achieved in smaller distances along the displacement axis, between 1.1 and 1.2 mm of deformation, which makes results more reliable for those design models.  
Also, with the decline in parabolic height, the results seem more coherent, and force-displacement curves got closer to each other. If the data in Table 1 are considered carefully, one can notice that as the height of the parabolic surface drops off, the relative density slightly increases. This leads to the significant novelty that by reducing the height of the parabolic surface, the tessellation increases the number of struts and, thus, the relative  
Figure 14: Force-Displacement chart by FE analysis for DM5-S1 and DM5-S2.  
Figure 13: Force-Displacement chart by FE analysis for DM1-S1 and DM1-S2.  
density of the stochastic structure. This implies the notable fact that the more the parabola extends through the volume, the tessellation builds fewer struts, so the relative density drops off and vice versa. These findings prove that the position and size of the geometric parabolic surface that serves as the basis for Voronoi population distribution directly affect the relative density of the tessellated model. Even slight differences in relative lattice structure density lead to drastic differences in mechanical response. This clearly implies that it is possible to control the mechanical response of the stochastic structure and even improve it in some segments. A degree of increasing linear dependence between relative density and stiffness is evident in design models that were tessellated based on a parabolic surface distribution (DM2 to DM5), which proves the significant influence of geometric parabolic arrangement of struts and topological validness of node formation. From another point of view, typical tessellation based on a random point distribution has the lowest relative density but has provided a significant response compared to DM5. However, the inability to predict the possible strut and node arrangement inside the structure is a massive disadvantage in seed-changing. The lack of any geometric law impacting the creation of internal structures results in the inability to predict any mechanical response related to stress acting in any direction. Uniaxial compression tests on lattice blocks highlighted the effect of design parameters on the mechanical properties of parabolic tessellated structures. A linear relationship was found between the plateau stress and elastic modulus relative to the measured relative density.  
On the other side, in both cases, FE analysis delivered lower results than experimental testing, which corresponds to the findings of [PERSON] et al. [18], who pointed out that actually printed structures are more resistant and yield, buckle, and crack later than FEM structures.  
It must be highlighted that experimental maximum forces are recorded at the highest chart peak, which is significantly behind the 1 mm deformation. It means doubtfully that experimentally recorded forces are objectively higher and belong beyond the elastic area or precisely to the maximum tensile stress area. That is why those obtained by FE analysis are significantly and expectedly less.  
Both experimental and numerical results showed that the introduction of a semi-controlled stochastic cellular structure can influence compressive mechanical properties. Variating the height and position of the parabolic surface influences the mechanical properties and, therefore, can be used to tailor the response of the stochastic structure, as shown in Figure 15.  
Figure 15: Force-Displacement prediction diagram according to parabolic distribution surface size and position (\(h_{p}=0.5h_{b}\): Red Curve; \(h_{p}=0.7h_{b}\): Dark Blue Curve; \(h_{p}=0.9h_{b}\): Green Curve; \(h_{p}=1.0h_{c}\): Light Blue Curve).