Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Symposium on Solid Modeling and Applications - SMA '02 2002
DOI: 10.1145/566294.566297
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Removal of blends from boundary representation models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Additional information on simulation-oriented morphology types can benefit from feature recognition techniques which identifies specific geometric configurations (e.g. identification of fillets (Zhu and Menq 2002;Venkataraman, Sohoni, and Rajadhyaksha 2002), or ribs (Lai et al 2018)). Similarly to (L. Sun et al 2017aSun et al , 2017b, additional segmentation techniques can divide the B-Rep into simpler volumes adapted for a particular FE analysis (Lu, Gadh, and Tautges 2001;Chong, Kumar, and Lee 2004;Boussuge, Léon, et al 2014;Liu and Gadh 1997;L.…”
Section: Morphology Conceptmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additional information on simulation-oriented morphology types can benefit from feature recognition techniques which identifies specific geometric configurations (e.g. identification of fillets (Zhu and Menq 2002;Venkataraman, Sohoni, and Rajadhyaksha 2002), or ribs (Lai et al 2018)). Similarly to (L. Sun et al 2017aSun et al , 2017b, additional segmentation techniques can divide the B-Rep into simpler volumes adapted for a particular FE analysis (Lu, Gadh, and Tautges 2001;Chong, Kumar, and Lee 2004;Boussuge, Léon, et al 2014;Liu and Gadh 1997;L.…”
Section: Morphology Conceptmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The difference between them is that the former must recognize form features from the input B-rep model, whereas the latter can directly use the form features defined in the design history of the input model (Sun et al, 2010). Venkataraman et al (2002) and Venkataraman and Sohoni (2001) described a method by Figure 1 The key features during the 3D tolerance analysis using the underlying blend structure in predicting the final topology to suppress the blending features. Zhu and Menq (2002) proposed an approach utilizing an incremental knitting process to handle various topological structures of fillets and rounds.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, CAD models are often imported into the downstream analysis system and as a result the feature information is lost. simplification More recent research concentrated on feature identification [Li and Liu, 2002;www.geometricsoftware.com;Venkataraman and Sohoni 2002;Venkataraman et al 2002;Zhu and Menq 2002]. Typically, volumetric features were identified via various geometric and topological tests and subsequently the feature volume was reconstructed through extending or contracting the neighbouring faces.…”
Section: Contributionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, the underlying definition of surfaces and edges are modified to accomplish the required changes [Butlin and Stopes 1996;Jones et al 1995;Venkataraman and Sohoni 2002;Venkataraman et al 2002]. This approach required the comprehensive understanding and definition of the geometries being edited, and is generally computationally expensive.…”
Section: Geometric Issuesmentioning
confidence: 99%