Advertisement

ShapeOp—A Robust and Extensible Geometric Modelling Paradigm

  • Mario Deuss
  • Anders Holden Deleuran
  • Sofien Bouaziz
  • Bailin Deng
  • Daniel Piker
  • Mark Pauly
Chapter

Abstract

We present ShapeOp, a robust and extensible geometric modelling paradigm. ShapeOp builds on top of the state-of-the-art physics solver (Bouaziz et al. in ACM Trans Graph 33:154:1–154:11, 2014). We discuss the main theoretical advantages of the underlying solver and how this influences our modelling paradigm. We provide an efficient open-source C++ implementation (www.shapeop.org) together with scripting interfaces to enable ShapeOp in Rhino/Grasshopper and potentially other tools. This implementation can also act as a template for future integration of computer graphics research. To evaluate the potential of ShapeOp we present various examples using our implementation and discuss potential implications on the design process.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the reviewers for their valuable comments. This work has been supported by Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) grant 200021 137626 and the Danish Council for Independent Research (DFF). This research has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Unions Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007–2013) /ERC Grant Agreement 257453, ERC Starting Grant COSYM.

References

  1. Attar R, Aish R, Stam J, Brinsmead D, Tessier A, Glueck M, Khan A (2009) Physicsbased generative design. In: CAAD futures conference, pp 231–244Google Scholar
  2. Bouaziz S, Deuss M, Schwartzburg Y, Weise T, Pauly M (2012) Shape-up: Shaping discrete geometry with projections. Comput Graph Forum 31(5):1657–1667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouaziz S, Martin S, Liu T, Kavan L, Pauly M (2014) Projective dynamics: fusing constraint projections for fast simulation. ACM Trans Graph 33(4):154:1–154:11Google Scholar
  4. Day AS (1965) An introduction to dynamic relaxation. Engineer 219:218221Google Scholar
  5. Deng B, Bouaziz S, Deuss M, Kaspar A, Schwartzburg Y, Pauly M (2015) Interactive design exploration for constrained meshes. Comput Aided Des 61:13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kilian A, Ochsendorf J (2005) Particle-spring systems for structural form finding. J Int Assoc Shell Spat Struct 46(2):77–84Google Scholar
  7. Nocedal J, Wright S (2006) Numerical optimization, 2nd edn. Springer series in operations research and financial engineering, Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Piker D (2013) Kangaroo: form finding with computational physics. Architect Des 83(2):136–137Google Scholar
  9. Pottmann H, Liu Y, Wallner J, Bobenko A, Wang W (2007) Geometry of multi-layer freeform structures for architecture. ACM Trans Graph 26(3):1–11Google Scholar
  10. Pottmann H, Eigensatz M, Vaxman A, Wallner J (2015) Architectural geometry. Comput Graph 47:145–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Senatore G, Piker D (2015) Interactive real-time physics: an intuitive approach to form-finding and structural analysis for design and education. Comput Aided Des 61:32–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Tang C, Sun X, Gomes A, Wallner J, Pottmann H (2014) Form-finding with polyhedral meshes made simple. ACM Trans Graph 33(4):70:1–70:9Google Scholar
  13. Witkin A, Baraff D (1997) Physically based modeling: principles and practice. In: Siggraph ’97 Course notesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mario Deuss
    • 1
  • Anders Holden Deleuran
    • 2
  • Sofien Bouaziz
    • 1
  • Bailin Deng
    • 1
  • Daniel Piker
    • 3
  • Mark Pauly
    • 1
  1. 1.École Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts School of ArchitectureCITACopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Robert McNeel and AssociatesLondonUK

Personalised recommendations