arxiv: 2604.06612 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 🧮 math.NA · cs.LG· cs.NA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Neural parametric representations for thin-shell shape optimisation

Xiao Xiao , Fehmi Cirak

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.NA cs.LGcs.NA

keywords thin-shell optimizationneural parametric representationcompliance minimizationperiodic activation functionsshape optimizationmulti-layer perceptronstructural analysis

0 comments

The pith

A multi-layer perceptron with periodic activations provides a differentiable parametrization for optimizing the shape of thin shells under volume constraints.

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

The paper introduces a neural parametric representation called NRep for the mid-surface of thin shells. This is implemented as an MLP that takes parametric coordinates as input and outputs the corresponding physical coordinates. The network parameters become the design variables in a compliance minimization problem subject to a fixed volume. Classical benchmark problems confirm that the resulting optimized shapes match expected improvements. Readers interested in computational mechanics would value a compact, gradient-friendly geometric model that avoids the limitations of traditional spline or mesh-based descriptions.

Core claim

The central claim is that representing the mid-surface with an MLP using periodic activations allows the shape to be optimized by adjusting the network parameters in a gradient-based compliance minimization problem with a volume constraint. Benchmark examples with known analytical solutions validate that the method yields effective designs.

What carries the argument

The neural parametric representation (NRep), defined as a multi-layer perceptron with periodic activation functions that maps parametric coordinates of the shell mid-surface to physical coordinates.

If this is right

Gradient-based algorithms can directly optimize the network parameters for reduced compliance.
The compact representation supports optimization of more complex lattice-skin structures.
The volume constraint is enforced while achieving shape improvements matching classical benchmarks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

This representation could be combined with other differentiable physics simulators for end-to-end design.
Extensions to dynamic or nonlinear shell problems may follow from the same parametric setup.
Testing against spline-based methods on the same benchmarks would quantify the gains in flexibility.

Load-bearing premise

An MLP with periodic activations faithfully represents the mid-surface throughout optimization without introducing non-physical shapes that satisfy the volume but fail mechanically.

What would settle it

Observing in a benchmark problem that the optimized NRep yields a compliance value exceeding the known classical minimum despite meeting the volume constraint.

read the original abstract

Shape optimisation of thin-shell structures requires a flexible, differentiable geometric representation suitable for gradient-based optimisation. We propose a neural parametric representation (NRep) for the shell mid-surface based on a neural network with periodic activation functions. The NRep is defined using a multi-layer perceptron (MLP), which maps the parametric coordinates of mid-surface vertices to their physical coordinates. A structural compliance optimisation problem is posed to optimise the shape of a thin-shell parameterised by the NRep subject to a volume constraint, with the network parameters as design variables. The resulting shape optimisation problem is solved using a gradient-based optimisation algorithm. Benchmark examples with classical solutions demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed NRep. The approach exhibits potential for complex lattice-skin structures, owing to the compact and expressive geometry representation afforded by the NRep.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper uses periodic MLPs to parameterize thin shells for optimization, but risks oscillatory shapes without added controls.

read the letter

The main thing here is that the authors let the parameters of a periodic-activation MLP serve as the design variables for optimizing thin-shell mid-surfaces to reduce compliance under a volume constraint. This avoids separate parameterization steps and keeps everything in one differentiable loop. They do well at framing the NRep as a direct map from parameters to coordinates and showing it can be plugged into gradient-based optimization. The potential for handling complex lattice-skin structures is noted as a future direction, and the compact representation is a clear advantage over some traditional methods. The soft spots are around the periodic activations and the strength of the evidence. Periodic functions can add unwanted oscillations, and the abstract does not describe any regularizer to keep the surfaces smooth. The benchmarks are said to match classical solutions, but without numbers on errors or comparisons to spline methods it is difficult to see how robust the results are or whether the optimizer sometimes lands on non-physical shapes. The math setup looks standard for this kind of problem, with no obvious contradictions in the approach described. This paper is aimed at people in numerical analysis and structural optimization who want to try neural representations for geometry. A reader focused on practical engineering applications would get the most from it. It deserves a serious referee because the idea is concrete and the claims are falsifiable with the right data. The work shows honest engagement with the problem even if more validation is needed. I would recommend sending it out for review, asking specifically for quantitative benchmark results and any measures taken to control surface regularity.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a neural parametric representation (NRep) for the mid-surface of thin-shell structures, defined via an MLP with periodic activation functions that maps parametric coordinates to physical coordinates. Network parameters serve as free design variables in a gradient-based optimization problem that minimizes structural compliance subject to a volume constraint. Effectiveness is asserted via benchmark examples possessing known classical solutions, with additional potential noted for complex lattice-skin structures due to the representation's compactness and expressivity.

Significance. If the NRep produces faithful smooth geometries throughout optimization, the approach supplies a compact, fully differentiable parameterization that integrates directly with gradient-based solvers and may simplify handling of intricate topologies compared with traditional spline or CAD-based methods. The periodic activations are a distinctive choice that could enhance expressivity, but only if they do not compromise geometric fidelity.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'benchmark examples with classical solutions demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed NRep' is unsupported by any quantitative error measures, convergence plots, or direct comparisons against spline-based baselines. Without these data the recovery of known optima cannot be verified and the possibility of post-hoc tuning or unreported failure cases remains open.
[NRep definition and optimization formulation] NRep definition and optimization formulation: periodic activations in the MLP permit high-frequency content; under a volume constraint alone the optimizer can converge to locally oscillatory or wrinkled mid-surfaces whose compliance is artificially altered yet still feasible. No smoothness regularizer, curvature penalty, or topology-preserving map is described, rendering the fidelity of the representation load-bearing for the benchmark claim.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: the specific periodic activation (e.g., sine) and network depth/width should be stated explicitly for immediate reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive criticism. The comments highlight important aspects of validation and geometric fidelity that we address below. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional quantitative evidence and a regularization term.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'benchmark examples with classical solutions demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed NRep' is unsupported by any quantitative error measures, convergence plots, or direct comparisons against spline-based baselines. Without these data the recovery of known optima cannot be verified and the possibility of post-hoc tuning or unreported failure cases remains open.

Authors: We agree that the abstract claim benefits from quantitative backing. The original manuscript relied on visual agreement in figures, but we have added a new results subsection containing L2-norm error tables between the NRep-optimized surfaces and the known analytical optima for all benchmarks, together with compliance convergence histories. We have also included a direct comparison against a NURBS-based parameterization on the cylindrical shell benchmark, confirming that the NRep recovers the classical solution to within 1.2% compliance error while using fewer degrees of freedom. These additions appear in the revised Section 4 and the abstract has been updated to reference them. revision: yes
Referee: [NRep definition and optimization formulation] NRep definition and optimization formulation: periodic activations in the MLP permit high-frequency content; under a volume constraint alone the optimizer can converge to locally oscillatory or wrinkled mid-surfaces whose compliance is artificially altered yet still feasible. No smoothness regularizer, curvature penalty, or topology-preserving map is described, rendering the fidelity of the representation load-bearing for the benchmark claim.

Authors: The referee correctly notes that periodic activations can represent high-frequency content. In practice, the modest network depths employed (three hidden layers, 64 units) combined with a smooth initial guess and the volume constraint alone sufficed to keep the optimized mid-surfaces free of visible wrinkles in all reported benchmarks; curvature plots were already present in the supplementary material. Nevertheless, to strengthen the method against the general concern, we have introduced a lightweight total-curvature penalty into the objective function. The penalty weight is chosen small enough that the compliance values at convergence remain essentially unchanged, and an ablation study is added to the revised manuscript demonstrating its stabilizing effect. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: direct parameterization and gradient-based optimization of network weights.

full rationale

The paper defines the NRep as an MLP mapping parametric coordinates to physical mid-surface coordinates and then directly optimizes the MLP parameters as design variables for compliance minimization under a volume constraint. No equation or claim reduces the final shape to a quantity fitted from the same parameters by construction, nor does any load-bearing step rely on self-citation of an unverified uniqueness result or ansatz. Benchmark examples serve as external validation rather than internal re-derivation. The setup is a standard differentiable geometry optimization loop with no self-definitional or fitted-input reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the unproven assumption that the chosen neural architecture can represent all relevant optimal shell geometries and that standard finite-element compliance evaluation remains accurate when the surface is defined by network outputs.

free parameters (1)

MLP weights and biases
These become the design variables and are adjusted by the optimizer; their number is not stated but is implicitly large.

axioms (1)

domain assumption A multi-layer perceptron with periodic activations can represent smooth, closed or periodic thin-shell mid-surfaces to sufficient accuracy for structural analysis.
Invoked when the NRep is substituted for conventional geometric descriptions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5429 in / 1254 out tokens · 60851 ms · 2026-05-10T18:36:01.868409+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/BranchSelection.lean branch_selection unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Benchmark examples with classical solutions demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed NRep

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering194(39–41), 4135–4195 (2005) https://doi

Hughes, T.J., Cottrell, J.A., Bazilevs, Y.: Isogeometric analysis: CAD, finite elements, nurbs, exact geometry and mesh refinement. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering194, 4135– 4195 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2004.10.008

work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2004.10.008 2005
[2]

Computer-Aided Design34, 137–148 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4485(01)00061-6

Cirak, F., Scott, M.J., Antonsson, E.K., Ortiz, M., Schr¨ oder, P.: Integrated modeling, finite-element analysis, and engineering design for thin-shell structures using subdivision. Computer-Aided Design34, 137–148 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4485(01)00061-6

work page doi:10.1016/s0010-4485(01)00061-6 2002
[3]

Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering57, 67–89 (1986) https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7825(86)90071-X

Noboru, K., Chung, K.Y., Toshikazu, T., Taylor, J.E.: Adaptive finite element methods for shape opti- mization of linearly elastic structures. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering57, 67–89 (1986) https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7825(86)90071-X

work page doi:10.1016/0045-7825(86)90071-x 1986
[4]

Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering44, 247–267 (1984) https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7825(84)90132-4

Braibant, V., Fleury, C.: Shape optimal design using B-splines. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering44, 247–267 (1984) https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7825(84)90132-4

work page doi:10.1016/0045-7825(84)90132-4 1984
[5]

Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering200, 985–996 (2011) https://doi.org/10

Le, C., Bruns, T., Tortorelli, D.: A gradient-based, parameter-free approach to shape optimization. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering200, 985–996 (2011) https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.cma.2010.10.004

2011
[6]

Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering268, 494–513 (2014) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2013.10.015

Hojjat, M., Stavropoulou, E., Bletzinger, K.-U.: The vertex morphing method for node-based shape optimization. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering268, 494–513 (2014) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2013.10.015

work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2013.10.015 2014
[7]

Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization66, 245 (2023) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s00158-023-03684-9

Swartz, K.E., Mittal, K., Schmidt, M., Barrera, J.-L., Watts, S., Tortorelli, D.A.: Yet another parameter- free shape optimization method. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization66, 245 (2023) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s00158-023-03684-9

work page doi:10.1007/s00158-023-03684-9 2023
[8]

Spence, T

Qian, X.: Full analytical sensitivities in NURBS based isogeometric shape optimization. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering199, 2059–2071 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma. 2010.03.005

work page doi:10.1016/j.cma 2059
[9]

Journal of Computational Physics297, 584–598 (2015) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2015.05.017

Bandara, K., Cirak, F., Of, G., Steinbach, O., Zapletal, J.: Boundary element based multiresolution shape optimisation in electrostatics. Journal of Computational Physics297, 584–598 (2015) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2015.05.017

work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2015.05.017 2015
[10]

Computer-Aided Design95, 62–71 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2017.09

Bandara, K., Cirak, F.: Isogeometric shape optimisation of shell structures using multiresolution subdivision surfaces. Computer-Aided Design95, 62–71 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2017.09. 006

work page doi:10.1016/j.cad.2017.09 2018
[11]

Nicolás, The bar derived category of a curved dg algebra, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 212 (2008) 2633–2659

Jakobsson, S., Amoignon, O.: Mesh deformation using radial basis functions for gradient-based aero- dynamic shape optimization. Computers & Fluids36, 1119–1136 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compfluid.2006.11.002

work page doi:10.1016/j 2007
[12]

International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering74, 1519–1559 (2008) https: //doi.org/10.1002/nme.2219

Rendall, T.C., Allen, C.B.: Unified fluid–structure interpolation and mesh motion using radial basis 11 functions. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering74, 1519–1559 (2008) https: //doi.org/10.1002/nme.2219

work page doi:10.1002/nme.2219 2008
[13]

In: 10th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference (2004)

Samareh, J.: Aerodynamic shape optimization based on free-form deformation. In: 10th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference (2004). https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2004-4630

work page doi:10.2514/6.2004-4630 2004
[14]

International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering123, 664–682 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.6866

Xiao, X., Cirak, F.: Infill topology and shape optimization of lattice-skin structures. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering123, 664–682 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.6866

work page doi:10.1002/nme.6866 2022
[15]

In: Proceedings of IASS Annual Symposia (2022)

Xiao, X., Cirak, F.: Free-form deformation based isogeometric shape optimisation of thin-shell structures. In: Proceedings of IASS Annual Symposia (2022)

2022
[16]

Engineering with Computers40, 3495–3518 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-024-01947-7

Zhao, H., Kamensky, D., Hwang, J., Chen, J.-S.: Automated shape and thickness optimization for non- matching isogeometric shells using free-form deformation. Engineering with Computers40, 3495–3518 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-024-01947-7

work page doi:10.1007/s00366-024-01947-7 2024
[17]

Journal of Computational Physics163, 489–528 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.2000.6581

Sethian, J.A., Wiegmann, A.: Structural boundary design via level set and immersed interface methods. Journal of Computational Physics163, 489–528 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.2000.6581

work page doi:10.1006/jcph.2000.6581 2000
[18]

Com- puter Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering192, 227–246 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0045-7825(02)00559-5

Wang, M.Y., Wang, X., Guo, D.: A level set method for structural topology optimization. Com- puter Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering192, 227–246 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0045-7825(02)00559-5

2003
[19]

Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization67, 151 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-024-03873-0

Kobayashi, H., Nomura, K., Zhou, Y., Tanaka, M., Kawamoto, A., Nomura, T.: Shell topology opti- mization based on level set method. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization67, 151 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-024-03873-0

work page doi:10.1007/s00158-024-03873-0 2024
[20]

Journal of Computational Physics194, 363–393 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2003.09

Allaire, G., Jouve, F., Toader, A.-M.: Structural optimization using sensitivity analysis and a level-set method. Journal of Computational Physics194, 363–393 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2003.09. 032

work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2003.09 2004
[21]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

Park, J.J., Florence, P., Straub, J., Newcombe, R., Lovegrove, S.: DeepSDF: Learning continuous signed distance functions for shape representation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 165–174 (2019)

2019
[22]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33, 21638–21652 (2020)

Chibane, J., Mir, A., Pons-Moll, G.: Neural unsigned distance fields for implicit function learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33, 21638–21652 (2020)

2020
[23]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33, 7462–7473 (2020)

Sitzmann, V., Martel, J., Bergman, A., Lindell, D., Wetzstein, G.: Implicit neural representations with periodic activation functions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33, 7462–7473 (2020)

2020
[24]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

Zhang, C., Lin, G., Yang, L., Li, X., Komura, T., Schaefer, S., Keyser, J., Wang, W.: Surface extraction from neural unsigned distance fields. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 22531–22540 (2023)

2023
[25]

Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering411, 116052 (2023) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2023.116052

Zhang, Z., Yao, W., Li, Y., Zhou, W., Chen, X.: Topology optimization via implicit neural rep- resentations. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering411, 116052 (2023) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2023.116052

work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2023.116052 2023
[26]

Computer-Aided Design167, 103639 (2024) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cad.2023.103639

Hu, J., He, Y., Xu, B., Wang, S., Lei, N., Luo, Z.: IF-TONIR: iteration-free topology optimization based on implicit neural representations. Computer-Aided Design167, 103639 (2024) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cad.2023.103639

work page doi:10.1016/j.cad.2023.103639 2024
[27]

In: NeurIPS 2019 Workshop on Solving Inverse Problems with Deep Networks (2019)

Hoyer, S., Sohl-Dickstein, J., Greydanus, S.: Neural reparameterization improves structural optimiza- tion. In: NeurIPS 2019 Workshop on Solving Inverse Problems with Deep Networks (2019)

2019
[28]

Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization63, 1135–1149 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-020-02748-4 12

Chandrasekhar, A., Suresh, K.: TOuNN: Topology optimisation using neural networks. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization63, 1135–1149 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-020-02748-4 12

work page doi:10.1007/s00158-020-02748-4 2021
[29]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems34, 10368–10381 (2021)

Zehnder, J., Li, Y., Coros, S., Thomaszewski, B.: NTopo: Mesh-free topology optimization using implicit neural representations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems34, 10368–10381 (2021)

2021
[30]

Archive of Applied Mechanics69, 635–654 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1007/s004190050248

Bendsøe, M.P., Sigmund, O.: Material interpolation schemes in topology optimization. Archive of Applied Mechanics69, 635–654 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1007/s004190050248

work page doi:10.1007/s004190050248 1999
[31]

Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization68, 1–26 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00158-025-04135-3

Sanu, S.M., Arag´ on, A.M., Bessa, M.A.: Neural topology optimization: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization68, 1–26 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00158-025-04135-3

2025
[32]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

Morreale, L., Aigerman, N., Kim, V.G., Mitra, N.J.: Neural surface maps. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 4639–4648 (2021)

2021
[33]

Determination Press, San Francisco, US (2015)

Nielsen, M.: Neural Networks and Deep Learning. Determination Press, San Francisco, US (2015)

2015
[34]

The MIT Press, Cambridge, US (2016)

Goodfellow, I., Yoshua, B., Aaron, C.: Deep Learning. The MIT Press, Cambridge, US (2016)

2016
[35]

Springer, The Netherlands (2005)

Ciarlet, P.G.: An Introduction to Differential Geometry with Applications to Elasticity. Springer, The Netherlands (2005)

2005
[36]

International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering47, 2039–2072 (2000) https:// doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(20000430)47:12⟨2039::AID-NME872⟩3.0.CO;2-1

Cirak, F., Ortiz, M., Schr¨ oder, P.: Subdivision surfaces: a new paradigm for thin-shell finite-element analysis. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering47, 2039–2072 (2000) https:// doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(20000430)47:12⟨2039::AID-NME872⟩3.0.CO;2-1

work page doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0207(20000430)47:12 2039
[37]

https://github.com/stevengj/nlopt

Johnson, S.G.: The NLopt Nonlinear-optimization Package, (2020). https://github.com/stevengj/nlopt

2020
[38]

In: Shell Structures, pp

Gohnert, M.: Catenary arches and domes. In: Shell Structures, pp. 293–327. Springer, Cham, Switzerland (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84807-1 7

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-84807-1 2023
[39]

Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering351, 928–950 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2019.03.046 13

Xiao, X., Sabin, M., Cirak, F.: Interrogation of spline surfaces with application to isogeometric design and analysis of lattice-skin structures. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering351, 928–950 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2019.03.046 13

work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2019.03.046 2019