## 3 Results  
### Physical Test of Uniform Lattice Structures  
A comparison of weights reported from the FEA model, the nTopology model, and the physical measurements is reported in Table 3. The Simple Cubic lattice FEA model has a mass of 6.7 g, whereas the Isotruss lattice FEA model has a mass of 22.2 g. It is worth noting that the FEA models do not accurately capture overlapping beams at their connecting nodes; therefore, their weights are slightly higher than those of the actual geometry reported in nTopology or from physical weighing. The reported mass in nTopology amounts to 6.2 g for the Simple Cubic lattice with a relative density of 5% and 19.0 g for the Isotruss lattice with a relative density of 15%. Figure 10a depicts compression test results for the three Simple Cubic lattice samples versus the FEA model, plotted as the moving plate's reaction force versus its displacement. The experimental reaction force curves clearly show a linear elastic region up to the first layer collapse beginning at 400-450 N, after which, the force fluctuates in a plateau region at a level of approximately 200 N. The plateau region is characterized by two layer collapses at a displacement of 10 mm and 17.5 mm. The FEA model's reaction force greatly surpasses that of the experimental tests up to the initial layer collapse, reaching 1273 N. Beyond its linear elastic region, the plateau phase of the FEA model coincides well with the experimental results both quantitatively and qualitatively, but it does not adequately capture the reaction force peak caused by the layer collapse at the 10 mm mark. The increased buckling strength of the FEA model is explained by its flawless geometry and material composition. It contains no deviations in the geometry and material composition found in physical parts, artificially increasing the buckling strength of the structure. To test this statement, the model was also simulated after introducing random deviations to the elements' nodal positions. Figure 11 compares the base model with two versions with random nodal deviations of up to 0.1 mm and 0.2 mm, respectively. The force peak is markedly reduced and approaches the level seen from the test samples, while the plateau regions remain comparable but slightly elevated. Their energy absorption values amount to approximately 5.9 f for both variants. The potential material property deviations of the FEA model were not explored in this context. Figure 10b shows the experimental and simulative results of the Isotruss lattice models. The peak reaction forces of the linear elastic region of the experimental curves range from 3420 N to 3950 N, while the FEA model reaches 3215 N. The ensuing plateau region of test sample 1 is marked by two clearly discernible force peaks caused by sequential layer collapse. As for test sample 2, the same region shows a much smaller reaction force fluctuation range, remaining close to 2250 N. Test sample 3 shows total brittle failure immediately after the linear elastic region, at which point, it completely loses its load-bearing capacity until the compression plate contacts the structure again and reaches a reaction force level similar to the other test samples during the plateau phase. The FEA model peaks at 3220 N at the end of the linear elastic region and, in the plateau region, closely follows the force fluctuations observed for samples 1 and 2. The most noticeable difference between experiment and simulation is the failure mode that occurred, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline  & **Simple Cubic Lattice** & **Isotruss Lattice** \\ \hline FEA model weight (g) & 6.74 & 22.22 \\ nTop model weight (g) & 6.2 & 19.0 \\ Actual weights (g) & 5.9/6.0/5.7 & 20.0/18.7/20.3 \\ Average of actual weights (g) & 5.86 & 19.67 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Weights of the investigated geometries as reported with the FEA model, the nTop model, and their physical sample weights. which is not directly visible by observing the plots.