Engineering with Computers

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 91–100 | Cite as

A general framework for analysis and comparison of surface mesh optimization techniques

  • Irina Semenova
  • Nikita Kozhekin
  • Vladimir Savchenko
  • Ichiro Hagiwara
Original article


Many different algorithms for surface mesh optimization (including smoothing, remeshing, simplification and subdivision), each giving different results, have recently been proposed. All these approaches affect vertices of the mesh. Vertex coordinates are modified, new vertices are added and some original ones are removed, with the result that the shape of the original surface is changed. The important question is how to evaluate the differences in shape between the input and output models. In this paper, we present a novel and versatile framework for analysis of various mesh optimization algorithms in terms of shape preservation. We depart from the usual strategy by measuring the changes in the approximated smooth surfaces rather than in the corresponding meshes. The proposed framework consists of two error metrics: normal-based and physically based. We demonstrate that our metrics allow more subtle changes in shape to be captured than is possible with some commonly used measures. As an example, the proposed tool is used to compare three different techniques, reflecting basic ideas on how to solve the surface mesh improvement problem.


Surface mesh optimization Error metric Shape preservation 


  1. 1.
    Strang G, Fix GJ (1973) An analysis of the finite element method. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffszbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hoppe H, Duchamp T, McDonald J, Stuetzle W (1993) Mesh optimization. In: Computer graphics (SIGGRAPH’93) pp 19–26Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Surazhsky V, Gotsman C (2003) Explicit surface remeshing. In: Proceedings of eurographics symposium on geometry processing, pp 17–28Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alboul L, van Damme R (1997) Polyhedral metrics in surface reconstruction: tight triangulations, the mathematics of surfaces VII. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 309–336Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dyn N, Hormann K, Kim S-J, Levin D (2001) Optimizing 3D triangulations using discrete curvature analysis, mathematical methods for curves and surfaces. Vanderbilt University Press, Innovations in Applied Mathematics Series, pp 135–146Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garimella RV, Shashkov MJ, Knupp PM (2004) Triangular and quadrilateral surface mesh quality optimization using local parameterization, Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng 193(9–11):913–928CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frey P, Borouchaki H (1998) Geometric surface mesh optimization. Computer and Visualization in Science, pp 113–121Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Knupp PM (2000) Achieving finite element mesh quality via optimization of the Jacobian matrix norm and associated quantities. Int J Numer Meth Eng 48:401–420CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heckbert PS, Garland M (1997) Survey of polygonal surface simplification algorithms. In: SIGGRAPH’97 course notes: multiresolution surface modelingGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Loop C (1987) Smooth subdivision surfaces based on triangles. Master’s thesis. University of Utah, Department of MathematicsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dyn N, Levin D, Gregory JA (1990) A butterfly subdivision scheme for surface interpolation with tension control. ACM Trans Graph 9(2):160–169CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zorin D, Schroder P, Sweldens W (1996) Interpolating subdivision for meshes with arbitrary topology. In: SIGGRAPH’96, conference proceedings, pp 189–192Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cignoni P, Rocchini C, Scopigno R (1998) Metro: measuring error on simplified surfaces. Comput Graph Forum 17(2):167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Belyaev A, Ohtake Y (2003) A comparison of mesh smoothing methods. In: Israel-Korea bi-national conference modeling and computer graphics, pp 83–87Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karbacher S, Seeger S, Hausler G (2000) A non-linear subdivision scheme for triangle meshes. In: Vision, modeling and visualization 2000, pp 163–170Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karbacher S, Seeger S, Hausler G (2001) Refining triangle meshes by non-linear subdivision. In: Proceedings of 3rd international conference on 3D digital imaging and modeling, IEEE Computer Society, pp 270–277Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anoshkina EV, Belyaev AG, Seidel H-P (2002) Asymptotic analysis of three-point approximations of vertex normals and curvatures. In: Vision, modeling, and visualization 2002, pp 211–216Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vlachos A, Peters J, Boyd C, Mitchell JL (2001) Curved PN triangles, In: Symposium on interactive 3D graphics, pp 159–166Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Floater MS (1997) Parameterization and smooth approximation of surface triangulation. Comput Aid Geomet Des 14:231–250CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hormann K, Lasik U, Greiner G (2001) Remeshing triangulated surface with optimal parameterization. Comput Aid Des 33(11):779–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Canann SA, Tristano JR, Staten ML (1998) An approach to combined Laplacian and optimization-based smoothing for triangular, quadrilateral, and quad-dominant meshes. In: Proceedings of the 7th international meshing roundtable, pp 479–494Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Semenova I, Savchenko V, Hagiwara I (2004) Two techniques to improve mesh quality and preserve surface characteristics. In: Proceedings in 13th international meshing roundtable, pp 277–288Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Semenova I, Savchenko V, Hagiwara I (2004) Improvement of triangular and quadrilateral surface meshes. In: Proceedings in the 14th international conference on computer graphics and vision (GraphiCon’2004), pp 79–87Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irina Semenova
    • 1
  • Nikita Kozhekin
    • 1
  • Vladimir Savchenko
    • 2
  • Ichiro Hagiwara
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mech. Sciences and Eng.Tokyo Institute of TechnologyTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of Computer and Information SciencesHosei UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations