4.6 Article

Shape distribution-based retrieval of 3D CAD models at different levels of detail

期刊

MULTIMEDIA TOOLS AND APPLICATIONS
卷 76, 期 14, 页码 15867-15884

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11042-016-3881-5

关键词

3D CAD model retrieval; Freehand 2D sketch; Different LODs; Model simplification; Shape distribution-based comparison

资金

  1. Civil-Military Technology [14-CM-MC-15]
  2. Industrial Core Technology Development Program - Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy [10048341]
  3. Plant Research Program - Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of the Korean government [14IFIP-B091004-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With increasing design reuse in modern products, accurate and efficient 3D CAD model retrieval methods are required. To improve retrieval capability, a 3D shape comparison method is often utilized. In this method, the shapes of 3D CAD models in a database are compared with the shape given by a user. Meanwhile, for rapid generation of query models, a freehand sketch-based modeling method is adopted for retrieval systems. This method creates a low-level-of-detail (low-LOD) 3D CAD model with abbreviated exterior shapes. On the other hand, the target 3D CAD model in the database is a high-LOD 3D CAD model including detailed shapes of a product or components of a product. Considering different LODs of query and target models, we propose a new 3D CAD model retrieval method consisting of a 3D CAD model simplification system and a shape distribution-based shape comparison engine that compares multi-resolution models in a database to improve retrieval accuracy using a query model with simple shape. Experiment is conducted on 64 LOD models generated from 8 test cases and 8 query models generated by freehand sketch-based modelling method. Result shows a 200 % improvement on retrieval success rate for lower LOD models (100 %) compared with source models (50 %). Moreover, the proposed method has an advantage on efficiency, due to the simple calculation method and short computation time.

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

4.6
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