Advertisement

GeoInformatica

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 307–327 | Cite as

Generating seamless surfaces for transport and dispersion modeling in GIS

  • Fernando CamelliEmail author
  • Jyh-Ming Lien
  • Dayong Shen
  • David W. Wong
  • Matthew Rice
  • Rainald Löhner
  • Chaowei Yang
Article

Abstract

A standard use of triangulation in GIS is to model terrain surface using TIN. In many simulation models of physical phenomena, triangulation is often used to depict the entire spatial domain, which may include buildings, landmarks and other surface objects in addition to the terrain surface. Creating a seamless surface of complex building structures together with the terrain is challenging and existing approaches are laborious, time-consuming and error-prone. We propose an efficient and robust procedure using computational geometry techniques to derive triangulated building surfaces from 2D polygon data with a height attribute. We also propose a new method to merge the resultant building surfaces with the triangulated terrain surface to produce a seamless surface for the entire study area. Using Oklahoma City data, we demonstrate the proposed method. The resultant surface is used as the input data for a simulated transport and dispersion event in Oklahoma City. The proposed method can produce the seamless surface data to be used for various types of physical models in a fraction of the time required by previous methods.

Keywords

GIS Computational geometry Computational fluid dynamics Transport and dispersion CAD Mesh generation 

References

  1. 1.
    Li Z, Zhu Q, Gold C (2005) Digital terrain modeling: principle and methodology. CRC Press, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Okabe A, Boots B, Sugihara K, Chiu SN (2000) Spatial tessellations. Concepts and applications of voronoi diagrams, 2nd edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Kreveld M, Nievergelt J, Roos T, Widmayer P (1997) Algorithmic foundations of geographic information systems. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gold CM (1997) Simple topology generation from scanned maps. In: Proceedings of Auto-Carto 13. ACM.ASPRS, pp 337–346.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Berg M, Cheong O, van Kreveld M, Overmars M (2008) Computational geometry: algorithms and applications, 3rd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Löhner R (2008) Applied cfd techniques: an introduction based on finite element methods, 2nd edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL (2000) The finite element method, vol. 1: The Basis. Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hirsch C (1991) Numerical computation of internal and external flows, fundamentals of numerical discretization, vol 1. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hirsch C (1987) Numerical computation of internal and external flows, vol 2. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nelson EJ, Jones NL, Miller AW (1994) Algorithm for precise drainage basin delineation. ASCE J Hydraulic Eng 120(3):298–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yu S, Kreveld MV, Snoeyink J (1996) Drainage queries in tins: from local to global and back again. In: 7th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Camelli F, Wong DW, Sonwalkar M, Löhner R (2007) Coupling computational fluid dynamic models (cfd) and geographic information systems (gis). Paper presented at the 11th Annual George Mason University Conference on Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling, Fairfax, VA, July.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coirier WJ (2001) Development of high fidelity pc based simulator for modeling the atmospheric transport and dispersion of nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological substances in urban areas. CFD Research Corp, HuntsvilleGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coirier WJ, Kim S (2006) Cfd modeling for urban area contaminant transport and dispersion: model description and data requirements. In: Society AM (ed) Sixth Symposium of the Urban Environment, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wong DW, Camelli FE, Sonwalkar M (2007) Integrating computational fluid dynamics (cfd) models with gis: An evaluation on data conversion formats. In: SPIE (ed) Geoinformatics 2007: Geospatial Information Science China. International Society for Optical Engineering. doi: 10.1117/12.761763.
  16. 16.
    Clark MM (2009) Transport modeling for environmental engineers and scientists, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schnoor JL (1996) Environmental modeling. Fate and transport of pollutants in water, air, and soil. Environmental science and technology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boybeyi Z (ed) (2001) Mesoscale atmospheric dispersion. WIT, SouthamptonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Camelli F, Coirier B, Huber A, Hansen O, Kim S, Hanna S, Brown M (2006) An intercomparison of four computational fluid dynamics models: transport and dispersion around madison square garden. In: 14th Joint Conference on the Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology with the Air and Waste Management Assoc, Atlanta, GA. American Meteorological Society, p J2.6.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Camelli FE, Hanna SR, Lohner R (2006) Feflo cfd model study of flow and dispersion as influenced by tall buildings in new york city. In: Society AM (ed) 86th Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society, Atlanta, p J5.7.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hanna SR, Brown MJ, Camelli FE, Chan ST, Coirier WJ, Hansen OR, Huber AH, Kim S, Reynolds M (2006) Detailed simulations of atmospheric flow and dispersion in downtown manhattan. An application of five computational fluid dynamics models. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 87(12):1713–1726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hanna S, Chang J, Strimaitis D (1993) Hazardous gas model evaluation with field observations. Atmos Environ 27(15):2265–2285Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hanna SR, Briggs GA, Hosker RP (1982) Handbook on atmospheric diffusion. Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Oak Ridge.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hanna SR, Tehranian S, Carissimo B, Macdonald RW, Löhner R (2002) Comparisons of model simulations with observations of mean flow and turbulence within simple obstacle arrays. Atmos Environ 36(32):5067–5079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Coirier WJ, Fricker DM, Furmanczyk M, Kim S (2005) A computational fluid dynamics approach for urban area transport and dispersion modeling. Enviro Fluid Dynamics 5:443–479Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Camelli F, Löhner R, Hanna S (2006) Vles study of flow and dispersion patterns in heterogeneous urban areas. AIAA Paper 2006–1419.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Camelli F, Löhner R, Hanna S (2005) Vles study of must experiment. AIAA Paper 2005–1279.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Coirier WJ, Kim S (2006) Summary of cfd-urban results in support of the madison square garden and urban dispersion program field tests. In: Society AM (ed) Sixth Symposium on the Urban Environment, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hsie T, Ward IC (2006) A gis-based method for determining natural ventilation potentials and urban morphology. In: 23rd International Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Geneva, Switzerland, September 2006.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Löhner R, Baum JD, Mestreau E, Sharov D, Charman C, Pelessone D (2004) Adaptive embedded unstructured grid methods. Int J Num Method Eng 60(3):641–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Löhner R (1997) Automatic unstructured grid generators. Finite Elem Anal Des 25:111–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Löhner R (1996) Regridding surface triangulations. J Comput Phys 126:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Löhner R (1994) Recent progress in tetrahedral grid generation via the advancing front technique. In: Proc. 3rd International Meshing Roundtable.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Löhner R, Parikh P (1988) Three-dimensional grid generation by advancing front method. Int J Num Method Eng 8:1135–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Anglada MV (1997) An improved incremental algorithm for constructing restricted delaunay triangulations. Comput Graph 21(2):215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Piegl LA, Richard AM (1993) Algorithm and data structure for triangulating multiply connected polygonal domains. Comput Graph 17(5):563–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Renka RJ (1997) Algorithm 772: stripack: Delaunay triangulation and voronoi diagram on the surface of a sphere. ACM Trans Math Software 23(3):416–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Domiter V, Zalik B (2008) Sweep-line algorithm for constrained delaunay triangulation. Int J Geogr Inform Sci 22(4):449–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Owen SJ (October 1998) A survey of unstructured mesh generation technology. In: Proceedings 7th International Meshing Roundtable, Dearborn, MI.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gold CM (1979) Triangulation based terrain modelling—where are we now? In: Aangeenburg RT (ed) Proceedings, Auto-Carto 4, International Symposium on Cartography and Computing, Baltimore, MD, USA, pp 104–111Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gold CM (1999) Crust and anti-crust: a one-step boundary and skeleton extraction. In: Symposium on Computational Geometry. pp 189–196.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cebral JR, Löhner R, Choyke PL, Yim PJ (2001) Merging of intersecting triangulations for finite element modeling. J Biomech 34:815–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cebral JR, Camelli F, Löhner R (2002) A feature-preserving volumetric technique to merge surface triangulations. Int J Num Method Eng 55:177–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lee DT, Lin AK (1986) Generalized delaunay triangulation for planar graphs. Discrete Comput Geom 1(1):201–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chew LP (1986) There is a planar graph almost as good as the complete graph. Proceedings of the Second ACM Symposium on Computational Geometry, Yorktown Heights, NY, pp 169–177.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Chew LP (1989) Constrained delaunay triangulations. Algorithmica 4(1):97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sheng X, Hirsch BE (1992) Triangulation of trimmed surfaces in parametric space. Comput Aided Des 24(8):437–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Flato E (2000) Robust and efficient construction of planar minkowski sums. Tel-Aviv University, Tel-AvivGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wein R (2006) Exact and efficient construction of planar minkowski sums using the convolution method. Paper presented at the Annual European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA), Zurich, Switzerland, September 2006.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Allwine KJ, Flaherty JE (2006) Joint urban 2003: study overview and instrument locations. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Oak RidgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Flaherty JE, Stock D, Lamb B (2007) Computational fluid dynamic simulation of plume dispersion in urban oklahoma city. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 46(12):2110–2126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Chan ST, Leach MJ (2007) A validation of fem3mp with joint urban 2003 data. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 46(12):2127–2146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Camelli F, Hanna SR, Löhner R (August 2004) Simulation of the must field experiment using the feflo-urban cfd model. In: Fifth Symposium on the Urban Environment, Vancouver, Canada. American Meteorological Society, p 13.12.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Löhner R, Yang C, Cebral J, Soto O, Camelli F, Baum JD, Luo H, Mestreau E, Sharov D, Ramamurti R, Sandberg W, Oh C (2001) Advances in feflo. AIAA Paper 2001–0592.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ju L (2007) Conforming centroidal voronoi delaunay triangulation for quality mesh generation. Int J Num Anal Model 4(3–4):531–547Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lin H, Batty M (eds) (2009) Virtual geographic environments. Science Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fernando Camelli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jyh-Ming Lien
    • 1
  • Dayong Shen
    • 1
  • David W. Wong
    • 1
  • Matthew Rice
    • 1
  • Rainald Löhner
    • 1
  • Chaowei Yang
    • 1
  1. 1.College of ScienceGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations