A linguistic formalism for engineering solid modeling

  • Patrick Fitzhorn
Part II Technical Contributions
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 291)


Linguistic models of physical solids have been widely studied for use in the kernels of CAD/CAM systems. These models are useful because they guarantee topological correctness of computer representations of physical solids. This papers outlines a new model, based in the graph grammars, that manipulates the bounding manifolds of physical solids. Proof of topological validity of this linguistic representation scheme proceeds as follows. First, the start graph is shown to be representative of a solid, then productions in the two dimensional grammar are shown to be syntactically complete and closed in the solids. Thus one starts with a solid topology, and any application of a graph production results in a solid topology.

Key words

solid modeling graph grammars formal languages object representations Euler operators graph representations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    A. Baer, C. Eastman, and M. Henrion. Geometric modeling: a survey. Computer-aided Design, 11:253–272, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    I. Braid, R. Hillyard, and I. Stroud. Stepwise construction of polyhedra in geometric modeling. In K. Brodie, editor, Mathematical Methods in Computer Graphics and Design, Academic Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    H. Chiyokura and F. Kimura. A method of representing the solid design process. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 5(3):32–41, 1985.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    P. Fitzhorn. The formal languages of solid representations. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 1987. (in review).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    R. Gonzalez and M. Thomason. Syntactic Pattern Recognition. Addison-Wesley, Reading, PA, 1978.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    L. Levy and K. Yueh. On labelled graph grammars. Computing, 20:109–125, 1978.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    W. Lin and K. Fu. A syntactic approach to 3-D object representation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI-6:351–364, 1984.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Mantyla. An inversion algorithm for geometric models. Computer Graphics, 16(3):51–60, 1982.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. Mantyla. A note on the modeling space of Euler operators. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, 26:45–60, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Mantyla and R. Sulonen. GWB: a solid modeler with Euler operators. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 2:17–32, 1982.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    U. Montanari. Separable graphs, planar graphs and web grammars. Information Control, 16:243–267, 1970.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Nagl. Formal languages of labelled graphs. Computing, 16:113–137, 1976.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    M. Nagl. A tutorial and bibliographical survey on graph grammars. In H. Ehrig V. Claus and G Rozenberg, editors, Graph Grammars and their Applications to CS and Biology, Springer-Verlag, 1979.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    A.A.G. Requicha. Representations of rigid solids: theory, methods and systems. ACM Computing Surveys, 12:437–464, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    G. Stiny and L. March. Design machines. Environment and Planning, B, 8:245–255, 1981.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    P. Wilson. Euler formulas and geometric modeling. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 5:24–36, 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Fitzhorn
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringColorado State UniversityFt. Collins

Personalised recommendations