4.7 Article

A robust direct modeling method for quadric B-rep models based on geometry-topology inconsistency tracking

期刊

ENGINEERING WITH COMPUTERS
卷 38, 期 4, 页码 3815-3830

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00366-021-01416-5

关键词

Computer-aided design; Direct modeling; Robustness issues; G1 Continuity; Geometry– topology inconsistencies

资金

  1. UBC Ph.D. Fellowship
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  3. QiangJi Program [TC190A4DA/3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper introduces a novel reverse detection method to address the challenge of geometry-topology inconsistencies during push-pull operations, and presents a robust method for push-pull direct modeling while preserving smooth connections. Case studies and comparisons have demonstrated the effectiveness of the method.
Boundary representation (B-rep) model editing plays an essential role in computer-aided design, and has motivated the very recent direct modeling paradigm, which features intuitive push-pull manipulation of the model geometry. In mechanical design, a substantial part of B-rep models being used are quadric models (composed of linear and quadric surfaces). However, push-pulling such models is not trivial due to the possible smooth face-face connections in the models. The major issue is that, during push-pull moves, it is often desirable to preserve these connections for functional, manufacturing, or aesthetic reasons, but this could cause complex inconsistencies between the geometry and topology in the model and lead to robustness issues in updating the model. The challenge lies in effectiveness towards detecting the instants when geometry-topology inconsistencies occur during push-pull moves. This paper proposes a novel reverse detection method to solve the challenge and then, based on it, presents a robust method for push-pull direct modeling while preserving smooth connections. Case studies and comparisons have been conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the method.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据