CG 1991: Computational Geometry-Methods, Algorithms and Applications pp 85-101 | Cite as
Robustness in geometric modeling — Tolerance-based methods
Abstract
Two tolerance-based methods are presented: the linear model method and the curved model method, both of which make geometric algorithms robust by testing for ambiguous situations and correcting them. The linear model method only applies to linear objects. It faithfully preserves the original meaning of the problem but may detect too many ambiguous situations and fail. The curved model method can be used for both linear and curved objects and creates fewer ambiguities, but it does not necessarily preserve all the properties of linear objects because it uses a curved model to approximate linear object. Both methods are implemented and applied for 3D Boolean operations on polyhedra.
Keywords
Model Method Curve Model Complex Object Simple Object Linear ObjectPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- [1]Allen, G. Testing the accuracy of solid modellers. Computer Aided Engineering (June 1985), 50–54.Google Scholar
- [2]Bruderlin, B. Detecting ambiguities: an optimistic approach to robustness problems in computational geometry. Tech. Rep. UUCS 90-003 (submitted), Computer Science Department, University of Utah, April 1990.Google Scholar
- [3]Bruderlin, B. Robust regularized set operations on polyhedra. In Proc. of Hawaii International Conference on System Science (January 1991).Google Scholar
- [4]Edelsbrunner, H., and Mucke, E. Simulation of simlicity: a technique to cope with degenerate cases in geometric algorithms. In Proc. of 4th ACM Symposium on Comp. Geometry (June 1988), pp. 118–133.Google Scholar
- [5]Greene, D., and Yao, F. Finite resolution computational geometry. In Proc. 27th IEEE Symp. Fundations of Computer Science (1986), pp. 143–152.Google Scholar
- [6]Guibas, L., Salesin, D., and Stolfi, J. Epsilon geometry: building robust algorithms from imprecise computations. In Proc. of 5th ACM Symposium on Computational Geometry (1989), p.Google Scholar
- [7]Hoffmann, C. M. The problems of accuracy and robustness in geometric computation. IEEE Computer 22, 3 (March 1989), 31–41.Google Scholar
- [8]Hoffmann, C. M., Hopcroft, J. E., and Karasick, M. S. Robust set operations on polyhedral solids. IEEE Computer Graphics and Application 9 (November 1989).Google Scholar
- [9]Milenkovic, V. Verifiable implementations of geometric algorithm using finite precision arithmetic. Artificial Intelligence 37 (1988), 377–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [10]Requicha, A. A. G. Solid modeling — a 1988 update. In CAD Based Programming for Sensory Robots (1988), B. R., Ed., Springer Verlag, New York, pp. 3–22.Google Scholar
- [11]Segal, M. Using tolerances to guarantee valid polyhedral modeling results. Computer Graphics 24, 4 (1990), 105–114.Google Scholar
- [12]Sugihara, K., and Iri, M. Geometric algorithms in finite precision arithmetic. Res. Mem. 88-14, Math. Eng. and Information Physicas, University of Tokyo, 1988.Google Scholar
- [13]Yap, C. K. A geometric consistency theorem for a symbolic perturbation theorem. In Proc. of 4th ACM Symposium on Comp. Geometry (June 1988), pp. 134–142.Google Scholar