A Framework for the Automatic Geometric Repair of CityGML Models

  • Junqiao ZhaoEmail author
  • Jantien Stoter
  • Hugo Ledoux
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)


Three-dimensional (3D) city models based on the OGC CityGML standard have become increasingly available in the past few years. Although GIS applications call for standardized and geometric-topological rigorous 3D models, many existing visually convincing 3D city datasets show weak or invalid geometry. These defects prohibit the downstream applications of such models. As a result, intensive manual work of model repair has to be conducted which is complex and labour-intensive. Although model repair is already a popular research topic for CAD models and is becoming important in GIS, existing research either focuses on certain defects or on a particular geometric primitive. Therefore a framework that explores the full set of validation requirements and provides ways to repair a CityGML model according to these requirements is needed and proposed in this paper. First, the validity criterion of CityGML geometric model is defined, which guarantees both the rigorous geometry for analytical use and the flexible representation of geographic features. Then, a recursive repair framework aiming at obtaining a valid CityGML geometric model is presented. The geometric terms adopted in this paper are compliant with the ISO19107 standard. Future work will further implement the framework.


3D models CityGML Validity Repair 



This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41201379 and 41171311), the Dutch Technology Foundation STW, which is part of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and partly funded by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation. (Project code: 11300).


  1. Badler NI, Glassner AS (1997) 3D object modeling. In: SIGGRAPH 97 introduction to computer graphics course notesGoogle Scholar
  2. Benner J, Geiger A, Leinemann K (2005) Flexible generation of semantic 3D building models. In: International ISPRS/EuroSDR/DGPF-workshop on next generation 3D city models, EuroSDR, BonnGoogle Scholar
  3. Bogdahn J, Coors V (2010) Towards an automated Healing of 3D urban models. In: Kolbe T, König G, Claus N (eds) Proceedings of international conference on 3D geoinformation. International archives of photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information science, Vol XXXVIII-4/W15. Shaker Verlag GmbH, Aachen, pp 13–17Google Scholar
  4. Botsch M et al. (2007) Geometric modeling based on polygonal meshes, ACM SIGGRAPH 2007 courses. ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Campen M, Attene M, Kobbelt L (2012) A practical guide to polygon mesh repairing. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Eurographics, Cagliari, Italy, pp t4Google Scholar
  6. Cavalcanti PR, Carvalho PCP, Martha LF (1997) Non-manifold modelling: an approach based on spatial subdivision. Comput Aided Des 29(3):209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Granados M et al. (2003) Boolean operations on 3D selective Nef complexes: data structure, algorithms, and implementation. In: Di Battista G, Zwick U (eds) Algorithms—ESA 2003: 11th annual european symposium. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Budapest, Sept 2003, pp 174–186Google Scholar
  8. Gröger G, Plümer L (2009) How to achieve consistency for 3D city models. GeoInformatica 15:137–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gröger G, Plümer L (2012a) Provably correct and complete transaction rules for updating 3D city models. Geoinformatica 16(1):131–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gröger G, Plümer L (2012b) Transaction rules for updating surfaces in 3D GIS. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 69:134–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gröger G, Kolbe TH, Nagel C, Häfele K (2012) OpenGIS city geography markup language (CityGML) encoding standard version 2.0.0. Open Geospatial Consortium. OGC 12-019Google Scholar
  12. Gruen A (2008) Reality-based generation of virtual environments for digital earth. Int J Digit Earth 1(1):88–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guéziec A, Taubin G, Lazarus F, Hom B (2001) Cutting and stitching: converting sets of polygons to manifold surfaces. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graph 7(2):136–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haala N, Fritsch D, Peter M, Khosravani A (2011) Pedestrian navigation and modeling for indoor environments. In: Proceeding of 7th international symposium on mobile mapping technology, CracowGoogle Scholar
  15. Hearn D, Baker MP (1996) Computer graphics, C version. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 652 pp Google Scholar
  16. Herring JR (2005) ISO 19107:2005: geographic information-spatial schema. International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  17. Hughes T, Cottrell JA, Bazilevs Y (2005) Isogeometric analysis: CAD, finite elements, NURBS, exact geometry and mesh refinement. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 194(39–41):4135–4195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Isikdag U, Underwood J, Aouad G (2008) An investigation into the applicability of building information models in geospatial environment in support of site selection and fire response management processes. Adv Eng Inform 22(4):504–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ISO (2012) ISO 19157: Geographic information—data quality. International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  20. Ju T (2009) Fixing geometric errors on polygonal models: a survey. J Comput Sci Technol 24(1):19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kazar BM, Kothuri R, Oosterom P, Ravada S (2008) On valid and invalid three-dimensional geometries. In: Advances in 3D geoinformation Systems. Lecture notes in geoinformation and cartography. Springer, Berlin, pp 19–46Google Scholar
  22. Ledoux H, Verbree E, Si H (2009) Geometric validation of GML solids with the constrained delaunay tetrahedralization. In: Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on 3D geo-Information, GhentGoogle Scholar
  23. Ledoux H, Ohori KA, Meijers M (2012) Automatically repairing invalid polygons with a constrained triangulation. In: Proceedings of Agile 2012, AvignonGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee JM (2010) Introduction to topological manifolds. Graduate texts in mathematics, vol 202. Springer, New York, 433 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. Liebich T et al. (2010) Industry foundation classes 2 × 4 (IFC2 × 4) release candidate 2Google Scholar
  26. Liepa P (2003) Filling holes in meshes. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Eurographics/ACM SIGGRAPH symposium on Geometry processing, Aachen, Germany, pp 200–205Google Scholar
  27. Nagel C, Stadler A, Kolbe TH (2009) Conceptual requirements for the automatic reconstruction of building information models from uninterpreted 3D models. In: Kolbe TH, Zhang H, Zlatanova S (eds) GeoWeb 2009 academic track. Cityscapes, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  28. Richard Shewchuk J (1997) Adaptive precision floating-point arithmetic and fast robust geometric predicates. Discret Comput Geom 18(3):305–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stoter J et al. (2013) Implementation of a national 3D standard: case of the Netherlands. In: Pouliot J, Daniel S, Hubert F, Zamyadi A (eds) Progress and new trends in 3D geoinformation sciences. Lecture notes in geoinformation and cartography. Springer, Berlin, pp 277–298Google Scholar
  30. Thompson R, van Oosterom P (2011) Connectivity in the regular polytope representation. GeoInformatica 2(15):223–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van Oosterom P, Quak W, Tijssen T (2004) About invalid, valid and clean polygons. In: Fisher PF (eds) Developments in spatial data handling. 11th international symposium on spatial data handling, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  32. Verbree E, Si H (2008) Validation and storage of polyhedra through constrained delaunay tetrahedralization. In: Geographic information science. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 354–369Google Scholar
  33. Wagner D et al. (2012) Geometric-semantical consistency validation of CityGML Models. In: 3D geoInfo conference 2012, Quebec City, May 16–17Google Scholar
  34. Worboys M, Duckham M (2004) GIS: a computing perspective. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhao J, Stoter J, Ledoux H, Zhu Q (2012) Repair and generalization of hand-made 3D building models. In: Proceedings of the 15th workshop of the ICA commission on generalisation and multiple representation jointly organised with EuroSDR commission 4—data specifications, Istanbul, p 10Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GIS TechnologyDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Center for Spatial Information Science and Sustainable DevelopmentTongji UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations