Nobuyuki Umetani
Takeo Igarashi
Niloy J. Mitra
Abstract
Geometric modeling and the physical validity of shapes are traditionally considered independently. This makes creating aesthetically pleasing yet physically valid models challenging. We propose an interactive design framework for efficient and intuitive exploration of geometrically and physically valid shapes. During any geometric editing operation, the proposed system continuously visualizes the valid range of the parameter being edited. When one or more constraints are violated after an operation, the system generates multiple suggestions involving both discrete and continuous changes to restore validity. Each suggestion also comes with an editing mode that simultaneously adjusts multiple parameters in a coordinated way to maintain validity. Thus, while the user focuses on the aesthetic aspects of the design, our computational design framework helps to achieve physical realizability by providing active guidance to the user. We demonstrate our framework on plank-based furniture design with nail-joint and frictional constraints. We use our system to design a range of examples, conduct a user study, and also fabricate a physical prototype to test the validity and usefulness of the system.
Supplemental Material
- Alexa, M., and Matusik, W. 2010. Reliefs as images. ACM TOG (SIGG.) 29, 60:1--60:7. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Baraff, D. 1994. Fast contact force computation for nonpenetrating rigid bodies. In ACM SIGGRAPH, 23--34. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bergman, R. 2010. Wood Handbook -- Wood as an Engineering Material. Forest Products Laboratory.Google Scholar
- Bickel, B., Bächer, M., Otaduy, M. A., Lee, H. R., Pfister, H., Gross, M., and Matusik, W. 2010. Design and fabrication of materials with desired deformation behavior. ACM TOG (SIGG.) 29, 63:1--63:10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chaudhuri, S., and Koltun, V. 2010. Data-driven suggestions for creativity support in 3D modeling. ACM TOG (SIGG. Asia) 29, 183:1--183:10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chaudhuri, S., Kalogerakis, E., Guibas, L., and Koltun, V. 2011. Probabilistic reasoning for assembly-based 3d modeling. ACM TOG (SIGG.) 30, 35:1--35:10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chenney, S., and Forsyth, D. A. 2000. Sampling plausible solutions to multi-body constraint problems. In ACM SIGGRAPH, 219--228. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eigensatz, M., Kilian, M., Schiftner, A., Mitra, N. J., Pottmann, H., and Pauly, M. 2010. Paneling architectural freeform surfaces. ACM TOG (SIGG.) 29, 4 (July), 45:1--45:10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Erleben, K., Sporring, J., Henriksen, K., and Dohlmann, H. 2005. Physics Based Animation (Graphics Series). Charles River Media, 8. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Funkhouser, T., Kazhdan, M., Shilane, P., Min, P., Kiefer, W., Tal, A., Rusinkiewicz, S., and Dobkin, D. 2004. Modeling by example. In ACM TOG (SIGG.), 652--663. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gal, R., Sorkine, O., Mitra, N. J., and Cohen-Or, D. 2009. iWIRES: an analyze-and-edit approach to shape manipulation. ACM TOG (SIGG.) 28, 33:1--33:10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Geradin, M., and Cardona, A. 2001. Flexible Multibody Dynamics: A Finite Element Approach, 1 ed. Wiley, 2.Google Scholar
- Igarashi, T., and Hughes, J. F. 2001. A suggestive interface for 3D drawing. In UIST, 173--181. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kaufman, D. M., Sueda, S., James, D. L., and Pai, D. K. 2008. Staggered projections for frictional contact in multibody systems. ACM TOG (SIGG. Asia) 27, 5, 164:1--164:11. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kerr, W. B., and Pellacini, F. 2010. Toward evaluating material design interface paradigms for novice users. In ACM TOG (SIGG.), 35:1--35:10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Klarbring, A. 1990. Examples of non-uniqueness and non-existence of solutions to quasistatic contact problems with friction. Archive of Applied Mechanics 60, 529--541.Google Scholar
- Merrell, P., Schkufza, E., Li, Z., Agrawala, M., and Koltun, V. 2011. Interactive furniture layout using interior design guidelines. ACM TOG (SIGG.) 30, 87:1--87:10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mitra, N. J., and Pauly, M. 2009. Shadow art. In ACM TOG (SIGG. Asia), 156:1--156:7. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ovsjanikov, M., Li, W., Guibas, L., and Mitra, N. J. 2011. Exploration of continuous variability in collections of 3D shapes. In ACM TOG (SIGG.), 33:1--33:10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Paczkowski, P., Kim, M. H., Morvan, Y., Dorsey, J., Rushmeier, H., and O'Sullivan, C. 2011. Insitu: sketching architectural designs in context. SIGG. Asia 30, 182:1--182:10. Google Scholar
- Parker, H., and Ambrose, J. 1997. Simplified Design of Wood Structures. Wiley.Google Scholar
- Popović, J., Seitz, S. M., Erdmann, M., Popović, Z., and Witkin, A. 2000. Interactive manipulation of rigid body simulations. In ACM SIGGRAPH, 209--217. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shapira, L., Shamir, A., and Cohen-Or, D. 2009. Image appearance exploration by model-based navigation. CGF (EUROGRAPHICS), 629--638.Google Scholar
- Singh, M., and Schaefer, S. 2010. Triangle surfaces with discrete equivalence classes. ACM TOG (SIGG.) 29, 46:1--46:7. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Smith, J., Hodgins, J. K., Oppenheim, I., and Witkin, A. 2002. Creating models of truss structures with optimization. ACM SIGGRAPH 21, 1, 295--301. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stewart, D., and Trinkle, J. 2000. An implicit time-stepping scheme for rigid body dynamics with coulomb friction. In IEEE ICRA, vol. 1, 162--169.Google Scholar
- Talton, J. O., Gibson, D., Yang, L., Hanrahan, P., and Koltun, V. 2009. Exploratory modeling with collaborative design spaces. ACM TOG (SIGG. Asia) 28, 167:1--167:10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Twigg, C. D., and James, D. L. 2008. Backwards steps in rigid body simulation. ACM TOG (SIGG.), 25:1--25:10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Umetani, N., Kaufman, D. M., Igarashi, T., and Grinspun, E. 2011. Sensitive couture for interactive garment modeling and editing. In ACM TOG (SIGG.), 90:1--90:12. Google ScholarDigital Library
- van Keulen, F., Haftka, R., and Kim, N. 2005. Review of options for structural design sensitivity analysis. part 1: Linear systems. Proc. CMAME 194, 30-33, 3213--3243.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Whiting, E., Ochsendorf, J., and Durand, F. 2009. Procedural modeling of structurally-sound masonry buildings. ACM TOG (SIGG. Asia) 28, 5, 112. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yang, Y.-L., Yang, Y.-J., Pottmann, H., and Mitra, N. J. 2011. Shape space exploration of constrained meshes. ACM TOG (SIGG. Asia) 30, 6. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yu, L.-F., Yeung, S.-K., Tang, C.-K., Terzopoulos, D., Chan, T. F., and Osher, S. J. 2011. Make it home: automatic optimization of furniture arrangement. ACM TOG (SIGG.) 30, 86:1--86:12. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
Guided exploration of physically valid shapes for furniture design
Recommendations
Guided exploration of physically valid shapes for furniture design
It is common to use computers to design shapes of physical objects such as furniture, but geometric modeling and the physical validity of shapes are conventionally considered independently. This makes creating aesthetically pleasing yet physically valid ...
Exploration of continuous variability in collections of 3D shapes
SIGGRAPH '11: ACM SIGGRAPH 2011 papersAs large public repositories of 3D shapes continue to grow, the amount of shape variability in such collections also increases, both in terms of the number of different classes of shapes, as well as the geometric variability of shapes within each class. ...
Exploration of continuous variability in collections of 3D shapes
As large public repositories of 3D shapes continue to grow, the amount of shape variability in such collections also increases, both in terms of the number of different classes of shapes, as well as the geometric variability of shapes within each class. ...
Comments