Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chopper: Partitioning Models Into 3D-Printable Parts
Chopper: Partitioning Models Into 3D-Printable Parts
Figure 1: Chopper partitions a given 3D model into parts that are small enough to be 3D-printed and assembled into the original model.
Left to right: the input chair model, Chopper’s partition (with a printing volume shown as a reference), printed parts, and assembled chair.
We force each connected component of the cross-section of each To determine if the female connector fits at a location in the volume,
cut to have one or more connectors to ensure the object does not we approximate its geometry conservatively as a union of a few
fall apart. While this condition is not strictly necessary (a donut cut spheres. We also maintain a distance field inside the object. We
in half needs only one connector for the two connected components sample the distance field at the locations of potential sphere centers
of the cross-section), we found that it helps the structural soundness and compare the distances to the sphere radii to determine if the
of the part without being overly restrictive. A single connector on connector fits. In this phase, we ignore the possibility that two
a large cross-section, however, may not be desirable: allowing for female connectors from different cross-sections may overlap; we
several connectors results in a more robust connection. Moreover,
several connectors in a straight line are not as robust as the same
number of connectors spread out in 2D. Therefore, we formulate an
objective that seeks to find cuts maximizing the potential quality of
connector placement (Figure 5).
where ε̂ (P) is the estimated seam cost for each future cut on P. We
found that the ε of the most recent seam on P is a good estimate of
ε̂ (P) in practice.
P3
P1 P2
P4
Figure 7: A naive partition may place cuts in structurally unsound Figure 8: Fins (e.g., P1) and bridges (e.g., P2) are locations of
areas (left). A structural analysis reveals portions of the model potential structural weakness. Our objective distinguishes P1 and
under high tension (middle), leading Chopper to select cuts away P2 from locations such as P3, which is excluded from consideration
from the highest-stress areas (right). because it hits P4 before it hits the cutting plane.
Figure 9: Without taking part fragility into account, the yellow part
has a thin fin near the tail (left). The fragility objective shifts the
cutting plane so that the tail is solidly attached (right).
Figure 11: Without user guidance, Chopper may cut through
One danger with this seam objective is that it favors planes that cut salient areas (left). The user may indicate an area that should not
off only tiny parts. Thus, it is important that its weight be balanced be cut (middle), and fseam encourages partitions to avoid it (right).
against the utilization objective (Equation 3), which bears the re-
sponsibility of preventing such small cuts.
Symmetry: To encourage symmetric cuts (Figure 12), we first
detect the model’s dominant reflective symmetry by computing the
Hausdorff distances between the model and its reflections with re-
spect to uniformly sampled planes (500 directions) passing through
the model’s center of mass. To improve robustness to tessellation,
the distance measure is based on a uniform sampling of 10,000
points on the model’s surface. The plane resulting in the smallest Figure 12: Taking into account the dominant reflective symmetry
symmetry distance is considered the symmetry plane πsymm , as long of a model discourages off-center cuts (left) and results in a more
as that distance is below 0.1 times the bounding box diagonal. pleasing partition (right).
The symmetry objective is computed by sampling a set of points P
on all the planes of a candidate BSP tree, and computing the root-
mean-square (RMS) distance between each point and the closest
point under reflection about the symmetry plane. This is normalized
by the diagonal of the initial bounding box d0 :
1
fsymmetry = RMS min
p − reflect(q, πsymm )
. (9)
d0 p∈P q∈P
3.3 Connector Placement Figure 13: Left: sampled potential connector locations on a cross-
section. Right: final optimized connector placement.
After the beam search, we are left with a number of potential con-
nector locations on each cross-section. Some of them may interfere tors at distance d from each other with d < 2rC of each other, we
with each other and not all are necessary: having too many connec- subtract 2π (rC − d/2)2 from ci . This ensures that connectors are
tors can make the part hard to clean (e.g., of support material used spaced roughly rC apart. We set ε to 10−5 to have a high penalty
in manufacturing). We use simulated annealing [Kirkpatrick et al. when a cross-section connected component has no connectors. For
1983] to place the connectors, minimizing the following objective: some i, ci can be below zero, and for each such ci we add −ci /Ci to
Ci the objective, to guide the optimization towards a better solution.
wI ∑ Ii, j + ∑ , (10)
i, j i ε + max(0, ci ) A state during simulated annealing is simply a subset of all possi-
ble connectors. A random mutation performs one of the following
where wI = 1010 and Ii, j is 1 if connectors i and j interfere and 0 actions (with equal probability): (1) picks a connector from among
otherwise. Ci is the area of the cross-section connected component all possible ones and toggles its presence in the state, or (2) re-
i and ci is the area “covered” by the connectors on that connected moves a random existing connector and adds a different one. We
component, computed as follows: each connector covers a certain run 15,000 iterations at zero temperature to initialize, and then use
area π rC2 . For large cross-sections, we use rC equal to 20 times the a linear cooling schedule and 300,000 iterations for the annealing
connector radius, but to place more connectors
√ on smaller cross- to improve the placement. A sample result is shown in Figure 13.
sections, we clamp rC to be at most 0.5 Ci . For any two connec-
4 Results
We have evaluated Chopper on a number of models, including me-
chanical parts, man-made art objects, and organic forms. Figures 1
and 14 show results printed on different 3D printers, ranging from
commercial to hobbyist-grade. The chair and kitten were printed
on a Fortus 400mc, the helmet and fertility models on an Objet
Connex500, and the armadillo on a Bits from Bytes BFB-3000.
We found that the commercial printers were able to produce parts
Figure 10: If seam cost is not penalized, Chopper prefers larger cut that fit together reasonably well, but the Bits from Bytes printer
cross-sections due to the connector objective (left). With the seam produced significant distortion in the printed parts, due to uneven
cost penalty, less obtrusive cuts are chosen (right). cooling during printing and deformation of parts under their own
Figure 14: 4 Models partitioned by Chopper, then 3D-printed and assembled.
weight. This required the use of a smaller effective working vol- is achieving its goals: matching any “better” cuts produced by hu-
ume than the maximum of which the device was capable, further mans would likely require changing the objective functions, not the
motivating the need for a tool such as Chopper. We also attempted beam-search optimization. Though we have not conducted a formal
to produce results using an extremely low-cost printer (Makerbot evaluation of whether Chopper’s partitions are generally preferred
Thing-O-Matic), but found that the printed parts had sufficient de- to the users’, or vice versa, informally we observe that there are
formation to be unusable. We expect that changes to the driver few cases in which the users’ results are obviously better, and those
software of such printers could result in more usable prints. cases require significantly more parts (e.g., compare User #4’s 7-
part armadillo to Chopper’s 5-part result).
Figure 18 shows decompositions and statistics for 16 models. We
report wall-clock timings for an Intel Core i7-920 (2.66 GHz). Par-
allelism is achieved by evaluating batches of cuts with different 6 Conclusion, Limitations, and Future Work
normals simultaneously (see Algorithm 1); this yields an average
speedup of 5.9 across eight hardware threads (four cores). All re- We have explored an automatic and practical method capable of
sults in this table were produced with the following weights: partitioning a wide range of models for 3D printing. Experimental
results confirm that the partitions Chopper produces can be printed
αpart =1 αutil = 0.05 αconnector = 1 on a variety of 3D printers and assembled.
αfragility = 1 αseam = 0.1 αsymmetry = 0.25
Our investigation opens up many avenues for future exploration.
Note that only αutil , αseam , and αsymmetry need to be carefully ad- For example, Chopper currently does handle connectors of different
justed relative to αpart = 1 for the application: ffragility is either 0 or types and sizes for a single object. In our results, the connector size
∞ and fconnector primarily influences the result when it is ∞. There for a few models with thin features was reduced from the default,
are a few other constants, such as Tn for the fragility objective that but Chopper could be extended to automatically consider multiple
can be tuned independently (although we found no need to do this) connector types and sizes and pick the best ones based on the cross-
and others, such as the number of planes that control the trade- section, surrounding geometry, and structural considerations.
off between the result quality and performance. For our tests, we
have manually selected an appropriate scale for each model, though A more challenging problem is to relax the restriction that our par-
Chopper can of course be applied for any ratio of model size to titions be BSP trees. While any partition can be represented as a
working volume (Figure 15). tree, our restriction that cuts must be planar can prevent desirable
partitions. The user study indicated that some users feel hampered
Figure 16 shows running time and the resulting objective value, as by this restriction in placing their cuts: for example, they want to
a function of beam width. The running time is roughly linear in cut the kitten’s head off independently from its tail, or to place more
beam width, as confirmed by the slope near 1 in this log/log plot natural-looking cuts that follow curved surface features.
(red line). The objective value typically decreases little in absolute
terms (black line), but even this modest numerical improvement Any algorithm accommodating non-planar cuts will have to satisfy
results in noticeably better partitions. the same objectives we have identified, in particular guaranteeing
printability and assemblability. It is possible to test for these prop-
erties during the search, though in some cases the check is more
5 User Study complex than for BSP trees (e.g., testing for assemblability requires
checking that all normals of the cutting surface lie within in a hemi-
To test the plausibility of the partitions produced by Chopper, we sphere, rather than being guaranteed by construction). A more seri-
have compared its output to the partitions produced by humans. The ous problem is organizing the search over possible cutting surfaces
users were constrained to BSP-tree partitions, as is Chopper, and in an efficient way. There are many more possibilities to explore
were given a tool allowing them to add or remove cuts, as well as if cutting surfaces may be non-planar, and enumerating plausible
see information about the current partition. The information pro- candidates is a challenging avenue for future work.
vided to the users included the values of all the objective functions
used by Chopper, though we observed that in practice users only Although partitioning models is necessary for objects larger than
referred to the number-of-parts estimates. Users were not given any the printing volume, it can be beneficial for smaller objects as well,
explicit instructions about what kinds of partitions were to be pre- even if they could in principle be printed as a single part. For ex-
ferred: they were only instructed to partition the model into pieces ample printing a hollow object as a single part is impossible on
that fit within the provided printing volume. most printers because support material cannot be removed. Using
partitioning to allow hollow printing, minimizing support material
There were 6 participants in our user study. Each was given 2 mod- and other objectives are intriguing directions for future research.
els on which to practice, then partitioned a further 4 or 5 models
(kitten, armadillo, chair, fertility, ant). Figure 17 shows results on In our experience with Chopper, it has produced many good parti-
one model, and full results are provided as supplemental material. tions, but some have room for improvement. Because the precise
desires of a user are difficult to express as objective weights, a rea-
Chopper was consistently able to produce partitions with equal or sonable solution would be to put the user in the loop in a more
lower numbers of parts than did humans, always achieving lower fundamental way. In our prototype, the user can provide guid-
total values of its objective functions. This suggests that the op- ance by marking rough desirable partition regions on the surface,
timization itself (as opposed to the design of objective functions) but Chopper makes the final decisions. Instead, the algorithms in
0.600 1.0995 4
4
Objective Value
Objective Value
1.0990
2
0.598 2
1.0985
0.597
1
1
0.596 1.0980
Figure 15: Reducing the working vol- 1 2 4 8 1 2 4 8
ume causes this hand model to be parti- Beam Width Beam Width
tioned into 10 and 18 parts (cf. original Figure 16: Increasing beam width results in decreased objective values, and hence better
in Figure 18, with 7 parts). partitions, at the cost of increased running time.
5 parts, 139 s 8 parts, 504 s 8 parts, 728 s 6 parts, 346 s 7 parts, 267 s 9 parts, 540 s 7 parts, 252 s
Figure 17: Sample results from a user study comparing Chopper to humans. Full results are provided as supplemental material.
Chopper could interactively provide suggestions for cutting planes C HEN , X., G OLOVINSKIY, A., AND F UNKHOUSER , T. 2009. A
and feedback (such as min-cover or printing time estimates), but benchmark for 3D mesh segmentation. ACM Trans. Graphics
the user would be responsible for the final cutting plane. Which (Proc. SIGGRAPH) 28, 3, 73:1–73:12.
solution is ultimately superior is a subject for future investigation.
D ICKINSON , J., AND K NOPF, G. 1998. Serial packing of arbitrary
3D objects for optimizing layered manufacturing. In Proc. SPIE,
Acknowledgments vol. 3522, 130–138.
We thank AIM@SHAPE for providing the models and Jonathan E GEBLAD , J., N IELSEN , B. K., AND B RAZIL , M. 2009. Transla-
Shewchuk for Triangle [Shewchuk 1996] that we used to tessellate tional packing of arbitrary polytopes. Computational Geometry
the cut surfaces. We thank the members of the Princeton Graph- 42, 4, 269 – 288.
ics Group, especially Sema Berkiten, Vladimir Kim, Tianqiang
Liu, Jingwan Lu, and Thiago Pereira, as well as Sebastian Koch, F UCHS , H., K EDEM , Z. M., AND NAYLOR , B. F. 1980. On
Pitchaya Sitthi-Amorn and Justin Lan. This work is partially sup- visible surface generation by a priori tree structures. In Computer
ported by NSF grant CCF-1012147, IIS-1116296 and ISTC-VC. Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH), vol. 14, 124–133.
H AO , J., FANG , L., AND W ILLIAMS , R. 2011. An efficient
References curvature-based partitioning of large-scale stl models. Rapid
Prototyping Journal 17, 2, 116–127.
AGRAWALA , M., P HAN , D., H EISER , J., H AYMAKER , J.,
K LINGNER , J., H ANRAHAN , P., AND T VERSKY, B. 2003. De- H AŠAN , M., F UCHS , M., M ATUSIK , W., P FISTER , H., AND
signing effective step-by-step assembly instructions. ACM Trans. RUSINKIEWICZ , S. 2010. Physical reproduction of materi-
Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH) 22, 3, 828–837. als with specified subsurface scattering. ACM Trans. Graphics
(Proc. SIGGRAPH) 29, 3, 61:1–61:10.
A LEXANDER , P., A LLEN , S., AND D UTTA , D. 1998. Part ori-
entation and build cost determination in layered manufacturing. H ILDEBRAND , K., B ICKEL , B., AND A LEXA , M. 2012. crdbrd:
Computer-aided Design 30, 5, 343–356. Shape fabrication by sliding planar slices. In Computer Graphics
ATTENE , M., K ATZ , S., M ORTARA , M., PATANE , G., S PAGN - Forum (Proc. Eurographics), vol. 31, 583–592.
UOLO , M., AND TAL , A. 2006. Mesh segmentation - a compar-
I KONEN , I., B ILES , W., L EWIS , J., K UMAR , A., AND R AGADE ,
ative study. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference R. 1998. GARP: Genetic algorithm for part packing in a rapid
on Shape Modeling and Applications 2006, 7–. prototyping machine. In Proc. SPIE, vol. 3517, 54.
AUPPERLE , L., C ONN , H., K EIL , J., AND O’ROURKE , J. 1988.
Covering orthogonal polygons with squares. In Proc. Communi- JANUSZEWSKI , J. 2009. A note on covering a square of side length
cation, Control and Computing, 97–106. 2 + ε . American Mathematical Monthly 116, 2, 174–178.
B ICKEL , B., B ÄCHER , M., OTADUY, M. A., L EE , H. R., P FIS - K IRKPATRICK , S., G ELATT J R , C., V ECCHI , M., AND M C C OY,
TER , H., G ROSS , M., AND M ATUSIK , W. 2010. Design and A. 1983. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220,
fabrication of materials with desired deformation behavior. ACM 4598, 671–679.
Trans. Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH) 29, 3, 63:1–63:10.
L AU , M., O HGAWARA , A., M ITANI , J., AND I GARASHI , T. 2011.
C HAZELLE , B. 1981. Convex decompositions of polyhedra. In Converting 3D furniture models to fabricatable parts and connec-
Proc. ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 70–79. tors. ACM Trans. Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH) 30, 4, 85:1–85:6.
airplane Vertices: 5,400 ant Vertices: 6,370 bearing Vertices: 1,663 bird Vertices: 3,478 buste Vertices: 12,769
Parts: 8 Time: 2.8 min Parts: 11 Time: 3.6 min Parts: 4 Time: 48 sec Parts: 6 Time: 1.3 min Parts: 5 Time: 1.0 min
cup Vertices: 15,198 dolphin Vertices: 7,121 elephant Vertices: 24,955 fandisk Vertices: 1,698 fertility Vertices: 49,994
Parts: 9 Time: 7.5 min Parts: 6 Time: 2.5 min Parts: 7 Time: 4.3 min Parts: 6 Time: 1.9 min Parts: 6 Time: 4.7 min
hand Vertices: 2,648 helmet Vertices: 33,262 human Vertices: 4,706 octopus Vertices: 5,944 rocker arm Vertices: 10,044
Parts: 7 Time: 1.9 min Parts: 8 Time: 6.8 min Parts: 8 Time: 2.3 min Parts: 10 Time: 2.6 min Parts: 6 Time: 2.1 min
Figure 18: Results of Chopper on a variety of models (with target working volume shown in gray). Note the connectors on each cross-section.
L IEN , J., AND A MATO , N. 2007. Approximate convex decom- S HEWCHUK , J. 1998. Tetrahedral mesh generation by Delaunay
position of polyhedra. In Proc. ACM Symposium on Solid and refinement. In Proc. Symposium on Computational Geometry,
Physical Modeling, 121–131. 86–95.
L OWERRE , B. T. 1976. The harpy speech recognition system. PhD S OIFER , A. 2006. Covering a square of side n + ε with unit
thesis, Carnegie Mellon University. squares. Journal of Combinatorial Theory A 113, 2, 380–383.
M C C RAE , J., S INGH , K., AND M ITRA , N. J. 2011. Slices: A S TAVA , O., VANEK , J., B ENES , B., C ARR , N., AND M ECH , R.
shape-proxy based on planar sections. ACM Trans. Graphics 2012. Stress relief: Improving structural strength of 3d printable
(Proc. SIGGRAPH Asia) 30, 6, 168:1–168:12. objects. ACM Trans. Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH) 31, 4, 1–8.
M EDELLIN , H., L IM , T., C ORNEY, J., R ITCHIE , J., AND DAVIES , T HRIMURTHULU , K., PANDEY, P. M., AND R EDDY, N. V. 2004.
J. 2007. Automatic subdivision and refinement of large compo- Optimum part deposition orientation in fused deposition model-
nents for rapid prototyping production. Journal of Computing ing. Machine Tools and Manufacture 44, 6, 585 – 594.
and Information Science in Engineering 7, 3, 249–258. T OUSSAINT, G. 1983. Solving geometric problems with the rotat-
M ORI , Y., AND I GARASHI , T. 2007. Plushie: An interactive design ing calipers. In Proc. IEEE Melecon, vol. 83, A10.
system for plush toys. ACM Trans. Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH) U METANI , N., K AUFMAN , D. M., I GARASHI , T., AND G RIN -
26, 3, 45:1–45:8. SPUN , E. 2011. Sensitive couture for interactive garment editing
and modeling. ACM Trans. Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH) 30, 4,
S AUL , G., L AU , M., M ITANI , J., AND I GARASHI , T. 2011.
90:1–90:12.
SketchChair: An all-in-one chair design system for end users.
In Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, 73–80. W HITING , E., O CHSENDORF, J., AND D URAND , F. 2009. Pro-
cedural modeling of structurally-sound masonry buildings. ACM
S HAMIR , A. 2008. A survey on mesh segmentation techniques. Trans. Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH Asia) 28, 5, 112:1–112:9.
Computer Graphics Forum 27, 6, 1539–1556.
X IN , S., L AI , C.-F., F U , C.-W., W ONG , T.-T., H E , Y., AND
S HEWCHUK , J. R. 1996. Triangle: Engineering a 2D Quality Mesh C OHEN -O R , D. 2011. Making burr puzzles from 3D models.
Generator and Delaunay Triangulator. In Applied Computational ACM Trans. Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH) 30, 4, 97:1–97:8.
Geometry: Towards Geometric Engineering. 203–222.