Computer-Aided Design 110 (2019) 78–91

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computer-Aided Design
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cad

Fillets, rounds, grooves and sharp edges segmentation from 3D

scanned surfaces✩ , ✩✩
∗
L. Di Angelo a , P. Di Stefano a , , A.E. Morabito b
a
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy
b
Department of Engineering for Innovation, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: Fillets, rounds, chamfers and grooves are secondary features which are typically present in real manu-
Received 7 February 2018 factured mechanical components to satisfy some manufacturing and functional requirements. Despite
Accepted 13 January 2019 the broad array of research conducted on feature recognition, the investigation of secondary features is a
relatively new topic. All of the pertinent studies have been focused only on the recognition of secondary
Keywords:
Blending features features from B-Rep models. The recognition and segmentation of secondary features from a discrete
Features recognition model is a non-trivial problem due to the same geometric descriptors that may be applied to both primary
3D mesh segmentation and secondary features. Moreover, although in real-world mechanical parts primary features are planes,
STL cylinders or cones, the secondary features may be non-analytical and complex-shaped geometries. Further
3D scanning sources of uncertainty are the measurement errors and non-ideal geometries of the real objects to which
Fuzzy logic the method is applied.
To overcome these problems, a new and original method to segment secondary features of tessellated
geometric models is proposed. The method is based on the analysis of geometric-differential properties
and provides specific strategies that reduce its sensitivity to all of the above-mentioned uncertainties
without affecting its selectivity. The proposed method, described in detail in this paper, is tested in some
very critical cases, and the results are presented and discussed.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction edge where an axial-symmetric face (such as cylindrical or conical

Secondary features, such as fillets, rounds, chamfers and
grooves, are present in mechanical components to satisfy appropri-
ate manufacturing and functional requirements. While the primary
features are important for understanding the engineering function
of a mechanical component, the secondary features are simple
transitions between primary ones and, although important, they
play auxiliary functions.
Fillets and rounds are rounded intersections of small radius be-
tween two primary features of the object, such as planes, cylinders
or cones. They are typically introduced in castings and forgings
to increase the strength and to make the product more attractive.
These features are also used to reduce stress concentration in cor-
ners improving the fatigue life of parts subjected to cyclic loading.
Grooves are typical for axisymmetric mechanical components
and are required to provide clearance for subsequent machining or
assembly. The relief grooves, in particular, are usually located on the
✩ This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the
public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
✩✩ This paper has been recommended for acceptance by Xiaoping Qian.
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: paolo.distefano@univaq.it (P. Di Stefano).
face) matches a planar face normal to the axis of the component.
According to the designer’s intent, secondary features serve to
remove the sharp edges created by the intersection of main geo-
metric shapes (primary features). The high-level semantic analysis
of a mechanical component aims at identifying the functions of
geometric features in the specific application contexts. Although
a secondary feature is described with a surface, from a semantic
point of view it can be considered as an attribute of an edge no
longer available (associated to two intersecting primary features).
Furthermore, the secondary features often have a geometric de-
scription identical to that of the primary features, so it is not trivial
to distinguish them from the latter.
The need to recognise the secondary geometric features from
the primary ones is required in many applications where the geom-
etry is automatically analysed to detect its meaningful properties.
For example, reverse engineering of a mechanical component,
performed directly from point clouds, should differentiate the
principal geometry from the secondary features. In particular, the
secondary features should be identified separately and assigned to
the edges, in accordance with what is done in mechanical engineer-
ing practice. This practice is also implemented in the procedural
definition of a geometric model into any commercial CAD software.
In other cases, such as in automatic geometric control of a scanned

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2019.01.003
0010-4485/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 L. Di Angelo, P. Di Stefano and A.E. Morabito / Computer-Aided Design 110 (2019) 78–91 79

Nomenclature t1 Plateau amplitude of the membership function

µr1 =R∗ .
R1 Characteristic radius of the CRSF. 1i
t2 Plateau amplitude of the membership function
k1 Maximum principal curvature (absolute
value).
µr2 =R∗2 .
r1 Radius of curvature measured at a point of σ Standard deviation of the radii r1 estimated for
the transverse section of a CRSF. constant radius synthetic geometries suitably
tessellated.
R∗1 Estimated characteristic radius of potential
CRSF. A1 , A2 Empirical constants.
R2 Radius of curvature of the sweep line. Θl Growing region.
∗
k2 Minimum principal curvature (absolute R1 Arithmetic mean of r1 -values of the growing
value). region Θl .
∗
R∗2 Estimated radius of curvature of the sweep R2 Weighted average of the r2 -values of the grow-
line of the potential CRSF. ing region Θl
Preg Set of the regular nodes. Qk Generic node of the growing region Θl .
∗
SPF Set of the nodes belonging to primary fea- ωj Generic weight for R2 evaluation.
tures. nt Number of nodes of the region Θl .
Θ
SE Set of the non-regular nodes. µe l Mean value of the membership function µe for
f (r1 ) Relative frequency of occurrence of r1 in a the nt nodes of the region Θl .
Θl
given range of values. µ ∗ Mean value of the membership function µr1 =R∗
r1 =R1 i 1i
i i th iteration of the procedure for determin- ∗
for R∗1 = R1i .
ing the radius values R∗1i of potential CRSFs. Θl
i

R∗1i Estimated characteristic radius of potential µ ∗ Mean value of the membership function µr2 =R∗
r2 =R2 2
∗
CRSFs at iteration i. for R∗2 = R2 .
Pj Θl
j th node of the mesh. µ ∗ Mean value of the membership function
¬r1 =R1 i
wj Weight measuring the level of trustworthi- ∗
ness of the r1 estimation at the node Pj . µ¬r1 =R∗1 for R∗1i = R1i .
i
C1 , C2 Empirically determined coefficients for wj µje Local value of the membership function µe es-
evaluation. timated for a point adjacent to the region Θl .
γj( Factor of curvature approximation. µj ∗ Local value of the membership function µr =R∗
) r1 =R1 i 1 1i
f R∗1i Peak height of the histogram at the i th itera- estimated for a point adjacent to the region Θl .
tion
( ) µj ∗ Local value of the membership function
CRSFk R∗i Generic set of points recognised as belonging ¬r1 =R1 i
to the kth CRSF of radius R∗1i .
µ¬r1 =R∗ estimated for a point adjacent to the
1i
region Θl .
Nk Number of CRSF recognised for a given value
of the characteristic radius R∗1i . µj ∗ Local value of the membership function µr =R∗
r2 =R2 2 2
fmean Mean value of the occurrence frequencies estimated for a point adjacent to the region Θl .
f (r1 ). (µ)2 Membership function evaluated considering
ε Threshold value used for the termination the geometric differential properties estimated
condition of the iterative procedure for R∗1i on the 2-neighbourhood.
evaluation. (µ)3 Membership function evaluated considering
Preg ,i Temporary set of regular nodes to be consid- the geometric differential properties estimated
ered for the evaluation of the histogram of on the 3-neighbourhood
D P j , Θl
( )
the radius r1 at the iteration i+1. Dissimilarity of the node P j with respect to the
r2 Radius of curvature evaluated at a point of a region Θl .
CRSF along the sweep line of the feature. Nl Number of regions Θl identified at the end of
µr1 =R∗1 Membership function describing the possi- the growing region step.
i
bility that a regular sr Sample rate.
( point
) belongs to the cat-
egory of the CRSF R∗1i . αmin Angle between the normals to the primary fea-
µe Membership function measuring the possi- tures matching in the secondary features, min-
bility that a node is not regular. imal among all those expected in the object
µ¬r1 =R∗1 Membership function measuring the possi- Ra Arithmetic mean roughness.
i
bility that a point belongs to any σs Standard deviation related to the scanner accu-
( other
) reg- racy.
ular feature different from CRSF R∗1i .
µ̃ () Membership function satisfying the normal-
ity condition.
SHI Sharpness indicator.
real object, the primary features should be distinguished from the
ae SHI value below which the node is recog-
secondary ones since the latter are not subject to explicit geometric
nised as regular.
specifications [1]. In addition, the ISO standard 2768 distinguishes
be SHI value above which the node is recognised
rounds and fillets from primary features invoking for the sec-
as non-regular.
ondary features specific and higher values of general tolerances.
Finally, secondary feature recognition plays an important role in
80 L. Di Angelo, P. Di Stefano and A.E. Morabito / Computer-Aided Design 110 (2019) 78–91

downstream applications pertaining to the use of CAD models for

FEM analysis or for manufacturing analysis aimed at generating
numerical codes ([2–5], and [6]).
Despite broad array of research conducted on geometric feature
recognition from unorganised point clouds or tessellated models
([7,8] and [9]), the investigation of secondary features is a rela-
tively new topic. The known automatic methods used to detect
basic shapes do not distinguish between primary and secondary
features. This is the case of [10] that proposes a method where,
starting from a set of locally adapted primitives based on RANSAC,
iteratively extracts a set of feasible relationships (orientation, posi-
tioning and equality) between the candidate ones. These relations
are then used to constrain and to optimise the local RANSAC based
primitives. The method is able to recognise only features described
by analytical equations (such as planes, cylinders or cones). This is
a significant limitation because secondary features are frequently
described by complex-shaped surfaces.
All the studies concerning secondary features recognition have
been implemented for B-Rep models [11–18]. This is a relatively
simple case of the recognition problem because the equations of
the surfaces wrapping the model are known.
The recognition process of secondary features applied to dis-
crete geometric models is much more complex. Since triangular
facets approximate the original smooth surface of the object, sec-
Fig. 1(a). Analytical CRSF.
ondary features have to be identified from a not fully-differentiable
surface, where curvature must be recognised and not directly eval-
uated. Additionally, secondary features have a limited extension
with respect to the sampling distance generally used during the
discretisation, so these features are roughly described, and the
evaluation of the geometric differential properties is made even
more difficult to perform. In a previous paper [19], the authors
presented a method suited to recognising secondary features on
discrete geometric models that are synthetically generated. This
method is not suitable for performing features recognition when
a mesh is experimentally acquired from real objects. In this case,
additional uncertainties, due to non-ideal geometry of the real
object and measurement errors, further complicate the recognition
process [20]. Furthermore, the nodes of the mesh are not located
perfectly on the transition between the model surface features or
on the sharp edges, as is the case of the synthetically generated
meshes. In order to segment selectively the secondary features,
some non-trivial problems must be solved.
In this paper, a new methodology is proposed to segment fillets,
rounds, grooves and sharp edges from 3D scanned mechanical
components described in the form of tessellated models. The orig-
inality of the proposed methodology, based on the analysis of
the geometric-differential properties of discrete models, lies in
the strategies that reduce the sensitivity to uncertainties without
affecting the selectivity of the recognition. The result is a high-level
semantic description of the object, where primary features are
separated from secondary features and all the transitions between
primary features are recognised and classified. In this paper, the
recognition method is presented and tested for some critical cases.
Fig. 1(b). Non-analytical CRSF.
2. The concept of Constant Radius Secondary Feature (CRSF)

Fillets, rounds, and grooves are features of the surface model
which are developed along a sweep line and each section, per-
formed by a principal normal plane orthogonal to the sweep line,
is circular (Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)). For these reasons, they are defined
as Constant Radius Secondary Features (CRSFs).
The methodology proposed here for the recognition of fillets,
rounds and grooves is found on the concept of the CRSF. A CRSF is
characterised by:
– its radius value R1 ;
– the geometry type of its sweep line (linear, circular, non-
analytical, branched and multi-transitional);
– its feature type (fillet, round or groove).
Grooves, unlike fillets and rounds, have a circular sweep line.
R1 , here referred to as the characteristic radius, is the radius of
the circular section of the CRSF. R1 is associated with the inverse
of the principal curvature maximum in absolute value (k1 ), and
it remains practically constant along the feature. In a real object,
the value of the radius of curvature r1 (r1 = k1 ), measured in the
1
 L. Di Angelo, P. Di Stefano and A.E. Morabito / Computer-Aided Design 110 (2019) 78–91
transverse sections of a CRSF, has a wide variability. The extent
of this variability mainly depends on the accuracy with which
the object has been manufactured, but also on the error due to
the measuring process and to the method used to estimate the
radius values from the set of measured points. In this paper, the
radius r1 is evaluated by means of the paraboloid approximation,
which, generally, systematically underestimates the real value of
the curvature radius [21]. In what follows, R∗1 is the estimated
characteristic radius of the potential CRSF, which is distinct from
the real value, designated by R1 . This difference between the real
and the estimated value of the radius is not a true problem because
a relative, rather than absolute, evaluation of the CRSF radius is
necessary for its identification.
The CRSF is typically located at the transition between two pri-
mary features and it may occur in a smooth or in a sharp transition;
moreover, the transition can be convex or concave. Typically, in
fillets or rounds, the CRSF has a smooth transition with both the
adjacent primary features, while grooves can be identified by the
CRSF having one or both transitions which are sharp (Fig. 1(a)).
Fillets may occur in a convex transition whereas rounds occur in
a concave transition (Fig. 1(a)).
The geometry of the sweep line of a CRSF depends on the form
and the relative positioning of the adjacent primary features. Al-
though in real-world mechanical parts primary features are planes,
cylinders or cones, the sweep lines of CRSFs can be complex-shaped
and non-planar, so that, in most cases, the corresponding surfaces
are non-analytical geometries (Fig. 1(b)). Sometimes, secondary
features are located on the transition of two free-form primary
features (non-analytical CRSF ); in other cases, one secondary fea-
ture may include the transitions between several primary features
(multi-transitional CRSF ) (Fig. 1(b)). The sweep line can be also a
branched curve (Fig. 1(b)), which makes the surface of the CRSF
much more complex (branched CRSF ). A CRSF can be non-analytical
and/or branched and/or multi-transitional.
3. The proposed methodology for CRSF recognition
The methodology consists of the following four steps:
– estimation of the differential geometrical properties (normals
and curvatures) at each node of the tessellated model,
– recognition of the characteristic radius R1 of CRSF s of the
object,
– segmentation of CRSF s,
– CRSF final assessment and type attribution.
CRSF recognition requires the evaluation of the normals and prin-
cipal curvatures at all nodes of the triangular mesh of the object.
Based on the results reported in [20], in this paper the normal
versor and the principal curvatures are evaluated at each node by
using the medial quadric method and the 5-coefficients paraboloid
fitting method. The chosen method of curvature estimation allows
a robust evaluation with respect to noise, although the values are
underestimated.
In what follows, R∗1 and R∗2 are, respectively, the estimated
characteristic radius and the radius of curvature of the sweep line of
the potential CRSFs and are distinct from the real values designated
by R1 and R2 .
Since the geometric differential properties analysis can be per-
formed only at differentiable points of the surface, the method
involves the investigation of the surface regularity. The CRSFs are
features composed of adjacent regular nodes, which pertain to the
regular region Preg of the model surface. The nodes identified as
regular may belong to either CRSFs or primary features SPF . The
identification of the non-regular nodes SE is carried out by a fuzzy
logic approach, which is described in Section 3.2, and the CRSF
type attribution is carried out according to the method proposed
in Section 3.3.
81
3.1. Recognition of characteristic radius R1 of CRSFs
A typical mechanical component may have several CRSFs dif-
fering from each other by type and/or R1 value as well as several
CRSFs of the same type and with the same R1 value that are not
adjacent to each other. A method whose aim is CRSF recognition
has to include a specific step devoted to distinguishing the nodes
of the object surface which are potentially attributable to CRSFs
from those pertaining to a primary feature. The typical R1 values
of a CRSF are relatively small, usually ranging from one to a few
millimetres. On the contrary, primary features are characterised by
larger values of the curvature radius. Potential secondary features
are portions of the object surface whose nodes have values of the
maximum principal curvature k1 that are approximately equal to
each other.
This method has been conceived under the hypothesis that,
at the beginning of the recognition process, the R1 values of the
CRSF are unknown and must be identified before the CRSFs can
be recognised and segmented. The approach used to identify the
R1 values of the CRSFs, depicted as a flow-chart in Fig. 2, is based
on the analysis of the occurrences of the r1 -values in the nodes
of the mesh. The radii of curvature r1 are estimated at each point
of the discrete model pertaining to the set Preg and their relative
frequency of occurrence f (r1 ) is estimated. For this purpose, only
the radii in a range, preventively assigned, of possible values have
been investigated (r1 ≤ 6 mm for the case study of Fig. 1). This
radius range is assigned specifying a maximum value that should
be sufficiently high to be sure that the characteristic radius of any
CRSF is lower.
From a dimensional point of view, a CRSF is characterised by
a radius R1 of the circular section that is generally much lower
than the radius R2 of the sweep line of the feature. Secondary
features do not have a predefined dimensional value for R1 . In
some cases, for specific kinds of secondary features these radii are
established by ISO standards, for example the standard ISO 4755
unifying the grooves sizes for external threads. The user can assign
the dimensional range in which these features can be searched.
This is not a limitation of the procedure, but it serves to define the
radius value of potential secondary features.
If a CRSF exists, several nodes of the geometric model will
pertain to it. The CRSFs are associated with the recurrent values of
radii: those values r1 for which a peak of the histogram is detected
and a specific value R∗1i is associated.
Although in the case of high-density synthetic discrete models
these peaks are well detectable [19], for a mesh experimentally
acquired this is no longer true because the effects of the noise
and manufacturing errors need to be added to the difficulty of
secondary features inspection. In Fig. 3a, an example of a histogram
of the relative frequencies f (r1 ) is reported for a 3D scanned sur-
face. The effect of the uncertainties affecting the radius values is
observed as a wide dispersion of the histogram. This dispersion has
the consequence of broadening and lowering the histogram peaks
that serve to identify the characteristic radii R∗1i of potential CRSFs.
The blurring of the peaks associated with a CRSF is greater when
the value of the radius r1 increases, and it can be so wide that some
useful peaks may be covered and disappear. In other cases, some
fictitious peaks unrelated to real CRSFs may appear.
To cope with the lack of well-defined peaks in the histogram, a
new method is proposed which implements an iterative procedure
for determining the radius values R∗1i of potential CRSF s (Fig. 2).
Since the value of the estimated radius r1j of the surface at the
node Pj is affected by uncertainties, its occurrence is evaluated by
a variable wj , which measures the level of trustworthiness of the
estimation and does not classify the event merely as true or false.
In this way,
∑ the frequency of occurrence of the radius is defined as
f (r1 ) = j wj . This new concept of frequency of occurrences gives
82 L. Di Angelo, P. Di Stefano and A.E. Morabito / Computer-Aided Design 110 (2019) 78–91
Fig. 2. Flowchart of the iterative methodology used to estimate the characteristic radii R∗1 i of the CRSFs.
rise to a more discriminating process, which identifies the evidence
(peaks in the histogram) better. A weight wj = 1 is assigned for an
estimation of the radius that is certainly true, while a value of 0 is
given for an estimation certainly false. For intermediate conditions,
the following empirical function is used:
C2
−C1 γj
wj = e
where
– C1 and C2 are coefficients determined with an automatic
procedure that aims to maximise the peak height f (R∗1i ) of the
histogram.
– γj is the factor of curvature approximation and is defined as
the maximum value of the tangent of the dihedral angle
evaluated between two adjacent triangular facets belonging
to the 1-neighbourhood of the node Pj [22].
The factor γj considers the effects of the noise (which typically
affects the measuring process), the manufacturing errors and un-
certainty due to the method used for curvature estimation. All of
these factors affect the truthfulness of radii estimated at a generic
node of the model. A small value of γj is evidence of a good
approximation of the surface curvature. For γj = 0, which is the
case of a very good approximation of the surface curvature, wj = 1;
on the contrary wj ≈0 for a rough tessellation of the surface. In
Fig. 4, the trend of the weight function is shown. For each iteration,
the function wj is evaluated at each node of the mesh, and then the
frequencies of occurrence f (r1 ) are evaluated.
In Fig. 3a the r1 -histogram for the case study is shown; as
expected, the histogram is very noisy and scattered. Fig. 3b shows
(1) the effect of the empirical weighting function on the histogram
with respect to the typical r1 -histogram of Fig. 3a.
The radii R∗1i of potential CRSFs in the object are identified
as the mode values of the weighted histogram. Since the peaks
in the histogram may not be immediately apparent, an iterative
algorithmic process (shown in Fig. 2) recognises, one by one, the R∗1i
values. Once a value of R∗1i is identified, a two-step algorithm based
on fuzzy logic is applied(to recognise the CRSFs with that specific
value of radius R∗i (CRSFk R∗1i = {k = 1, 2, . . . , Nk }). Starting from
)
a seed point (the node that has the highest value of the weight
factor wi for an assigned value of R∗1i ), a growing algorithm (de-
scribed in Section 3.2.2) performs the identification of the regions
of the(surface
) whose adjacent nodes pertain to the same feature
CRSFk R∗1i . The region growing algorithm ( is)applied recursively
Nk times, Nk being the number of CRSFk R∗1i . At the end of the
ith-iteration the temporary set Preg ,i , which changes in each itera-
tion of the recognition process, is identified. Preg ,i is a set including
 L. Di Angelo, P. Di Stefano and A.E. Morabito / Computer-Aided Design 110 (2019) 78–91
Fig. 3. (a) The r1 -histogram. (b) The weighted r1 -histogram.
Fig. 4. The weighting function used for the case study of Fig. 1.
the mesh nodes to be considered for the evaluation of the his-
togram of the frequencies of occurrence at the next iteration i + 1;
this set is defined as
Nk
⋃ the following conditions must be satisfied
CRSFk R∗1i
( )
Preg ,i = Preg ,i−1 −
k=1
where Preg ,0 = Preg .
The iterative process in Fig. 2 is repeated until there are no
more significant peaks in the histogram. At the end of the process,
the histogram of (residual) radii r1 is due only to the noise. At
this purpose, the height of the peak f (R∗1i ) of the histogram is
compared with the mean value of the occurrence frequencies fmean
and
⏐ ∗the iterative⏐ process is stopped when the difference between
⏐f (R ) − fmean ⏐ is less than ε. The ε-value has been determined
1i
83
empirically by analysing the cases where the algorithm had been
interrupted because the secondary features were not recognised in
association with a peak value of the frequency histogram. In what
follows ε is assumed equal to 5 · 10−3 .
In Fig. 5, the weighted histograms relative to Fig. 3b are shown
for all iterations of the process. The radii R∗1i of potential CRSFs
identified as the mode values of the weighted histogram at iter-
ations 1, 2 and 3 are, respectively R∗11 = 2 mm, R∗12 = 0.9 mm
and R∗13 = 2.8 mm. The iterative process stops when there are
no more significant peaks in the histogram so that the termination
condition of the algorithm is satisfied.
3.2. The fuzzy approach for CRSF segmentation
In order to segment a CRSF, the adjacent nodes that verify some
specific properties characterising the feature must be merged to-
gether by a region growing algorithm. Since in a CRSF the char-
acteristic radius R1 is constant and the radius of curvature of the
sweep line R2 may change gradually based on the CRSF geometry,
( ) in order to ascribe an
(2) adjacent node P j to a growing CRSF R∗1i :
( )
• r1 P j must be approximately equal to the arithmetic mean
of the r1 -values of the points already allocated to the growing
CRSF.
( )
• r2 P j must be approximately equal to the weighted average
of the r2 -values of the points already allocated, where the
weights ωk are chosen in order to give more influence to the
r2 -values of the nodes in the growing feature which are nearer
to P j .
84 L. Di Angelo, P. Di Stefano and A.E. Morabito / Computer-Aided Design 110 (2019) 78–91
Fig. 5. The iterative process for R∗1 i evaluation of the shaft in Fig. 1.
Due to the uncertainties in the radii estimation, these conditions
cannot be deterministically evaluated, but they can be assessed by
a fuzzy logic approach.
The fuzzy methodology, introduced here, unequivocally divides
the points of the tessellated model according to three categories:
( )
– regular points belonging to a region CRSF R∗1i having a spe-
cific characteristic radius R∗1i ,
– points pertaining to the set of the sharp nodes SE ,
– regular points that belong to the set of primary features SPF
( )
or to CRSF R∗1j with radius R∗1j different from R∗1i .
The segmentation of the tessellated model according to these
categories requires the definition of three membership functions
denoted by µr1 =R∗ , µe and µ¬r1 =R∗ . These functions, related to
1i 1i
each of the afore-mentioned categories, must always satisfy the
following equation:
µr1 =R∗1 + µe + µ¬r1 =R∗1 = 1
i i
Eq. (3) is verified for each point of the tessellated model, since the
generic point can belong unequivocally only(to those three cate-
gories. If the point certainly belongs to a CRSF R∗1i , i.e. µr1 =R∗ = 1,
)
1i
then it cannot pertain to a sharp edge (i.e., —e = 0) or to any other
regular feature (i.e., µ¬r1 =R∗ = 0).
1i
The membership function µ̃e measures the possibility that a
point is regular or not. The symbol ∼ denotes that the function sat-
isfies the normality condition. µ̃e is, in fact, 1 for a sharp point and
0 for a regular point. In all other cases µ̃e can identify intermediate
levels of non-regularity due, for example, to ( the) noise.
A regular point could pertain to a CRSF R∗1i or it could belong
to any other regular feature of the work piece. In the region of( the)
smooth surfaces, the possibility that a point belongs to a CRSF R∗1i
is described by the membership function µ̃r1 =R∗ .
1i
µ̃¬r1 =R∗1 , which is the complement of µ̃r1 =R∗1 for 1, describes the
i i
possibility
( that
) a regular point does not belong to the category of
the CRSF R∗1i .
When the sharp nodes are also present, the possibility that a
point belongs to a smooth surface is (1 − µ̃e ), so that the member-
ship function,
( ) measuring the possibility that a point pertains to a
CRSF R∗1i , is
µr1 =R∗1 = µ̃r1 =R∗1 (1 − µ̃e ) (4)
i i
Analogously, the membership function for all the other regular
features is
( )
µ¬r1 =R∗1 = 1 − µ̃r1 =R∗1 (1 − µ̃e ) . (5)
i i
3.2.1. The membership functions
To determine the membership attribution of a node to a specific
category, a suitable set of characteristic quantities that measure
some node properties must be identified. The quantity that affects
the membership µ̃e to the sharp edges (the set SE ) is the sharpness
indicator SHI(P), which has been defined by Di Angelo and Di
Stefano in [8]. It allows for the estimation of the membership of
(3) a node to a sharp edge. The function µ̃e is linearly dependent on
the sharpness indicator SHI(P) (Fig. 6). This membership function
µ̃e is defined by two characteristic parameters:
• ae is the value of SHI(P) below which the node can be surely
recognised to be smooth or regular (i.e., it does not belong to
a sharp edge).
• be is the lowest value of SHI(P) above which the node is non-
regular (i.e., it belongs to a sharp edge).
For the scope of this work, the values of ae and be have been
determined empirically in accordance with the results obtained
in [8].
One of the factors affecting the membership attribution of a
node to a secondary feature is the quality of the surface tessellation,
which can be measured by the factor of curvature approximation γj .
The membership functions of a node for a CRSF having radii R∗1i and
R∗2 are respectively µ̃r1 =R∗ and µ̃r2 =R∗ . These functions are defined
1i 2
in three intervals by a trapezoidal function (Fig. 7). In the central
interval µ̃r1 =R∗ = 1 (or µ̃r2 =R∗ = 1), so that the attribution of
1i 2
 L. Di Angelo, P. Di Stefano and A.E. Morabito / Computer-Aided Design 110 (2019) 78–91
Fig. 6. The membership function µe .
Fig. 7. The membership functions µ̃r1 =R∗ and µ̃r2 =R∗ . (For interpretation of the
1i 2
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version
of this article.)
the value of radius R∗1i (or R∗2 ) to the surface around the node is
certain. The boundaries of this interval are the values R∗1i − t1 /2
and R∗1i + t1 /2 (or R∗2 − t2 /2 and R∗2 + t2 /2). The membership
function is µ̃r1 =R∗ = 0 (µ̃r2 =R∗ = 0) for values of the radius
1i 2
r1 (or r2 ) over R∗1i( + t1 /2 + 4σ (or) R∗2 + t2 /2 + 4σ ) or under
R∗1i − t1 /2 − 4σ or R∗2 − t2 /2 − 4σ . In these fields of values for
both r1 and r2 , the node is surely not attributable to a CRSF having
a radius R∗1i . The parameters t1 , t2 and σ can be evaluated by means
of complex functions whose independent variable is the factor γ .
In order to determine these functions, empirical experimentation
is required.
The σ value has been estimated by specific experimentation
in which several test cases, characterised by specific values of the
nominal radii R1i and R2 , have been synthetically generated and
sampled by a random process. These test cases have the geom-
etry of some typical analytical shapes such as tori, cylinders and
spheres, and they have been tessellated so that an assigned maxi-
mum value of the factor γ was obtained. The standard deviation σ
of the estimated values of the radius R1i was evaluated, normalised
with respect to R( 1i and listed as a function of the γ value of the
)
σ
mesh. The points , γ obtained with this experiment are plot-
R1 i
ted in Fig. 8. The data can be well-approximated by the following
power function (in red in Fig. 8):
σ
= A1 γ A2
R1i
where A1 and A2 are empirical constants obtained by least-square
regression of experimental data.
The parameter t1 allows for the definition of the plateau of the
membership function µ̃r1 =R∗ represented in Fig. 7. Since rounds
1i
and fillets are affected by large manufacturing errors, the ampli-
tude of the plateau in µ̃r1 =R∗ can be evaluated as the value of the
1i
tolerance class specified by the ISO 2768 standard for linear sizes
of rounds and fillets. In order to implement the discrete data in ISO
2768 [23] a parabolic function t1 = t1 (R1 ), which interpolates the
limit deviations reported in the table II (ISO 2768), is used.
The parameter t2 allows for the definition of the plateau of
the membership function µ̃r2 =R∗ represented in Fig. 7; its value
2
can change depending on the general quality characteristics of the
analysed object, as prescribed by the table I of ISO 2768. An empir-
ical power function t2 = t2 (R2 ), has been used to interpolate the
85
( )
σ
Fig. 8. The points R1 i
,γ derived from the experiment. The fit using a power
function is shown by the red line.
discrete values of limit deviations for linear dimensions reported
by this table.
Once the membership functions have been determined, each
mesh node is associated with the previously mentioned fuzzy
categories. In Fig. 9, the nodes for which a non-zero possibility
of attribution
( ∗) of the radius R∗1i are shown by a colour-map. The
CRSF R1i in the test case have the following values of the char-
acteristic radius: R∗11 = 2 mm, R∗12 = 0.9 mm( and) R∗13 = 2.8 mm
(Fig. 9). From these colour maps, single CRSF R∗1i cannot be triv-
ially distinguished from each other and from the other regular
features. For this purpose, a further and last step, called region
growing, is required.
3.2.2. Region growing
In order to aggregate the adjacent nodes
( ) which are recognised
to be similar into a single feature CRSFk R∗1i , a growing algorithm is
applied. This algorithm implements the fuzzy concepts of dissimi-
larity or similarity of two linguistic variables of identical type
( [24].
)
In this case, the linguistic variables are the features CRSFk R∗1i to
which a node belongs, although the value of the radius at this point
is not exactly the same as the conventional one used to name the
feature.
The fuzzy algorithm does not associate a point with a feature
based on simple dimensional matching criteria. In order to assign
a node Pj to a growing region Θl , the algorithm looks at the dis-
similarity of Pj with respect to the growing region Θl in terms ( of)
the values of the membership functions. While in a CRSFk R∗1i
the radius R∗1i has a constant value, the radius R∗2 may change
(6) gradually along the sweep line of the feature, depending on the
geometric characteristics of the primary features which encounter
the secondary feature. For this reason, the dissimilarity of a node
∗
Pj is evaluated with respect to the arithmetic mean R1 of r1 -values
∗
and to the weighted average R2 of the r2 -values, where r1 and r2 are
evaluated at the points Q k of the growing region Θl . In particular,
∗
the generic weight ωj of the weighted average R2 is selected so as to
give more evidence to the r2 -values of the nodes Q k that are nearer
to Pj .
The region growing starts from a seed node of the mesh. The
seed node is selected among the nodes where the maximum mem-
bership degree µr =R∗ is reached. The seed node is compared with
1i
every node P j belonging to the 1-ring neighbourhood to analyse
dissimilarity. The nodes recognised to be similar are aggregated
in the growing region Θl . At each step of the growing algorithm,
the mean values of the membership functions, evaluated at the nt
86 L. Di Angelo, P. Di Stefano and A.E. Morabito / Computer-Aided Design 110 (2019) 78–91

Fig. 9. Colour maps of the membership function µr1 =R∗ for R∗1 = 2 mm, R∗1 = 0.9 mm and R∗1 = 2.8 mm.
1i 1 2 3

nodes of the region Θl , are calculated as follows: In (8) the membership function µr =R∗ is evaluated in the same
2 2
∑ µe (Q k ) ∑ µr1 =R∗ (Q k ) way as the membership function µ̃r1 =R∗ . These two membership
Θ Θl i
µe l = , µ ∗ = 1 i
, functions differ from each other only for the plateau amplitudes
nt r 1 = R1 i nt t1 and t2 . The region growing algorithm stops when dissimilar
Q k ∈Θl Q k ∈Θl
nodes are met or all the nodes have been analysed. At the end
ωk µr2 =R∗ (Q k )
∑
Q k ∈Θl (7)
Θ
µ l ∗ = 2
( ) Θl are identified: each of them
of the region growing, Nl regions
Q k ∈Θl ωk
∑
r2 =R2 represents a potential CRSF R∗i .
Θl Θ Θl Θl
µ ∗ = 1 − µe l − (µ ∗ ∗ ∗)
3.2.3. CRSF recognition
¬r1 =R1 i r1 =R1 i r2 =R2
The next phase
( )of the methodology aims at establishing if the
In order to evaluate the dissimilarity of the candidate point P j , the
j j j j generic set Θl R∗1i of adjacent points assigned to the category R∗1i
local values for µe , µ ∗ , µ ∗ , µ ∗ have to be compared
r1 =R1 i ¬r1 =R1 i ( r2 =R2 ) identifies a CRSF or not. In order that the nodes of the growing
with those in Θl . The dissimilarity D P j , Θl of the node P j with region are assigned to a CRSF, they must satisfy two further require-
respect to the region Θl is measured as in Box I [24], where ments:
the typical formula used to evaluate the dissimilarity [24] is spe-
cialised to this case. The parentheses ()2 and ()3 indicate that the (1) they must pertain to a sufficient number of triangles so that
enclosed membership function is evaluated with geometric differ- a significantly extended area is associated with the CRSF ;
ential properties estimated on the 2-ring neighbourhood and on (2) they are not located just along a line. Typically, false values
the 3-ring neighbourhood of the generic node, respectively. In the of R∗1i can be associated with nodes pertaining to an edge
defuzzification process, the simultaneous analysis of membership characterised by a small factor of curvature approximation
functions, evaluated in two different levels of the node neighbour- γ which has not been recognised as a sharp edge or along a
hood, serves to better recognise the boundary between a secondary smooth transition zone located where two different features
and a primary feature. The identification of this boundary must match each other.
satisfy two contrasting requirements: identifying selectively the
boundary and eliminating the typical uncertainties due to noise The proposed method proves the first requirement by verifying
and irregularities of a real surface. The first requirement needs that that the number of nodes pertaining to the growing region is
differential geometric properties are analysed in a small level of greater than a suitable threshold value. This threshold value is
neighbourhood of the node. On the contrary, the second requires established based on the sampling rate sr of the acquisition process
that the analysis is performed in a larger level of the node neigh- so that the recognised CRSFs have a longitudinal dimension (along
the sweep line), at least equal to circular radius R∗1i . Under these
bourhood. Since the radii r2 are noisier than r1 , in the above formula 2
Θ R∗
µj ∗ and µ l ∗ are evaluated only on the 3-neighbourhood of conditions, this threshold value is equal to αmin 1i
, where αmin is
r2 =R2 r2 =R2 s2r
the generic point. the angle between the normals to the primary features matching
D P j , Θl is 0 for perfectly similar points and 1 for completely
( )
in the secondary features, minimal among all those expected in
dissimilar points. Nodes recognised to be similar are aggregated to the object. In this way, the methodology allows to recognise as
Θl and its membership functions µΘl are evaluated again. Once all secondary features the spherical fillets at the vertex of a trihedral
the nodes in the 1-ring neighbourhood of P j have been examined, angle.
the procedure continues considering the 1-ring neighbourhood of The second requirement is tested by verifying that the grown
those nodes that have been recognised as ‘‘similar’’ to the P j node. region is not thinner than the point neighbourhood area used to
 L. Di Angelo, P. Di Stefano and A.E. Morabito / Computer-Aided Design 110 (2019) 78–91 87

⏐( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ⏐ ⏐⏐( ⏐
Θ Θ Θ Θ Θ
) ( ) ( ) ( )
⏐ j j j j j
⏐ µe ∗ µe − µe l ∗ µe l ⏐ + ⏐⏐ µr =R∗ ∗ µr =R∗ ∗ µr =R∗ − µr l=R∗ ∗ µr l=R∗ ∗ µr l=R∗ ⏐⏐
⏐ ⏐
2 3 2 3 1 1i 2 1 1i 3 2 2 1 1i 2 1 1i 3 2 2
D P j , Θl = ⏐( )
( )
( ) ( ) ⏐ ⏐⏐( ⏐ (8)
Θl Θl Θl Θl Θl
( ) ) ( ) ( ) ( )
⏐ j j j j j
⏐ µe ∗ µe + µe ∗ µe ⏐ + ⏐ µ ∗ µ ∗µ ∗ + µ ∗ µ ∗µ
⏐ ⏐
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
⏐ ⏐
2 3 2 3 r 1 = R1 i 2 r1 =R1 i 3 r2 =R2 r 1 = R1 i 2 r1 =R1 i 3 r2 =R2 ⏐

Box I. .

Fig. 10. The secondary features recognised by the application of the fuzzy methodology to the case study of Fig. 1.

Fig. 11. (a) The graph of adjacency for the attribution of a type to a CRSF. (b) Examples of CRSF.

evaluate the geometric differential properties of the mesh. A point Nk = 4 for R∗12 = 0.9 mm and Nk = 2 for R∗13 = 2.8 mm. In this
pertaining to the grown region satisfies this condition when all the Figure the sharp edges are recognised too: they are shown in black.
nodes in its 2-ring neighbourhood pertain to the grown region. If
the points in the grown region do not satisfy this condition, in order
3.3. CRSF final assessment and type attribution
to be assigned to the secondary feature, they have to be contained
in the 2-ring neighbourhood of a point, which fulfils it.
Fig. 10 shows all the secondary features recognised for the case When a constant radius feature has been recognised, it is nec-
study of Fig.
( 1:)each of them is represented with a different colour. essary to determine if it is a secondary feature; if so, the CRSF type
The CRSFk R∗1i have been recognised for R∗11 = 2 mm, R∗12 = will be identified. A constant radius feature, that is not located in
0.9 mm and R∗13 = 2.8 mm. Particularly, Nk = 2 for R∗11 = 2 mm, the transition between two primary features, is not a CRSF. This is
88 L. Di Angelo, P. Di Stefano and A.E. Morabito / Computer-Aided Design 110 (2019) 78–91

Fig. 12. Type attribution to the CRSFs recognised for R∗1 1 = 2 mm.

the case of a primary feature, which has a similar curvature radius

as the secondary features.
The final assessment and the attribution of a type to a CRSF
is carried out based on the graph of adjacency defined for the
secondary feature. In this graph, an arc represents an adjacency
relationship between the CRSF under examination and the neigh-
bouring primary features. The CRSF is located at the transition
between two primary features and it may occur in a smooth or
sharp transition; moreover, the transition can be convex or con-
cave (Fig. 11a). Based on the type of transition, several attributes
are assigned to each arc of the above-mentioned graph. Fig. 11(b)
shows the several types of CRSF that can be recognised.
Typically, in fillets or rounds, CRSF has a smooth transition with
both the adjacent primary features, while grooves can be identified
by one or both transitions of the CRSF which are sharp (Fig. 11b).
Fillets may occur in convex transition whereas rounds occur in
concave transition (Fig. 11b).
In Fig. 12 the type is attributed to the two CRSF s recognised
for R∗11 = 2 mm, based on the graph of adjacency defined for the
secondary feature: a fillet and a groove are respectively recognised.

4. Experimental test cases and discussion Fig. 13. The three test cases here analysed.

The practical confirmation of the methodology proposed here

has been achieved by the analysis of several experimental cases.
Three of them are discussed in what follows. The presented test
cases are real objects experimentally acquired by a 3D scanner
FARO (Edge ScanArm) with a laser line probe (accuracy 4σs =
0.0688 mm, sample rate sr = 0.25 mm) and represented by 3D
tessellated models.
The first test case is a motorcycle steering component made in
aluminium alloy by die-casting (Fig. 13(a)). The surface of this com-
ponent has undergone a sandblasting treatment and anodic oxida-
tion (the average arithmetic roughness Ra is equal to 3.64 µm). The
other two test cases are a nut wrench (Fig. 13(b)) and a piston rod
(Fig. 13(c)). These last two components are non-trivial case studies
for any method, which aims at segmenting secondary features. The
nut wrench is a forged component whose surface is characterised
by a value of roughness Ra approximately equal to 6.35 µm. The
piston rod has been manufactured by sand casting and its surface
shows a very high value of Ra . In Fig. 14, the histograms of the
frequency of occurrence f (r1 ) are shown for the three case studies.
In the first test case, the motorcycle steering component, three
characteristic radii R∗1i are identified (R∗11 = 2.9 mm, R∗12 = 4.5 mm,
R∗13 = 2 mm). In Fig. 15, the CRSF segmentation for this component
is presented. In order to show all the recognised CRSF s as clearly
as possible, Fig. 15 differentiates them only by the value of the
search radius R∗1i (yellow, green and blue). The colour grey is chosen
for highlighting the primary features and red for the sharp edges.
The CRSF s and sharp edges are segmented without errors. Their
boundaries do not appear clearly defined because the models are
obtained from real objects. As shown by Fig. 15, several types of
CRSF (non-analytical, branched and multi-transitional) have been
recognised by the methodology.
Fig. 16 illustrates the results of the CRSF recognition process for
the nut wrench, in which two values of R∗1i have been recognised
(R∗11 = 3 mm, R∗12 = 1.5 mm). Although some small surface
islands having a different colour seem to mislead the viewer as to
the real quality of the CRSF identification, in this case the method
also correctly segments the CRSF s. In particular, the two sections
in Fig. 16 show that the alternating traits in green and yellow
recognised by the method are due to real differences in the radius
of adjacent CRSF s. Furthermore, while the section A-A has a regular
all-point profile, section B-B shows some sharp nodes (shown
in red); this is evidence that the method correctly identifies the
different secondary features (Fig. 16(a)). Fig. 16(b) shows other
details of the CRSF recognition for the wrench, which seem to be
misleading. In particular, the profile of the section E-E confirms the
presence of a planar face (grey in the detail C of the figure) between
the two fillets of radius R∗11 = 3 mm (yellow in the figure).
 L. Di Angelo, P. Di Stefano and A.E. Morabito / Computer-Aided Design 110 (2019) 78–91 89

Fig. 14. The iterative evaluation of the characteristic radii R∗1 i for the test cases considered. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)

The connecting rod (for which two values of R∗1i have been
recognised: R∗11 = 3.1 mm, R∗12 = 1.7 mm) represents a par-
ticularly difficult case for any method that claims to recognise
secondary features. It is manufactured by sand casting and, for this
reason, is affected by a high value of the surface roughness and
form errors. For this test case, the first histogram (Fig. 14) shows
a single wide rounded peak. Due to the high surface roughness, in
fact, a peak of the histogram identifying one or more CRSFs of a
certain radius R∗1i may expand enough to cause other useful peaks
to disappear. The high Ra value is also responsible for the fictitious
peak detected at the end of the iterative procedure used for the
identification of the R∗1i values. The growing process, in fact, carried
out for the corresponding R∗13 value leads to not recognising any
region of area sufficiently extended to be assimilated into a CRSF.
90 L. Di Angelo, P. Di Stefano and A.E. Morabito / Computer-Aided Design 110 (2019) 78–91

Fig. 15. CRSF segmentation for the motorcycle steering component: several types of CRSF (non-analytical, branched and multi-transitional) have been recognised by the
methodology. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 16. The CRSF segmentation for the nut wrench (R∗1 1 = 3 mm, R∗1 2 = 1.5 mm). The r1 variability along the profile of each section was visualised using the same colours
selected to distinguish the various values of the identified radius.

In Fig. 17, the results of the CRSF recognition process for the case, a revolved section of the rod is shown. The r1 variability along
connecting rod are shown. To highlight the relationship between the profile of this section has also been visualised using the same
the recognised CRSF s and the geometric shape of the scanned test colours selected to distinguish the various CRSF s identified based
 L. Di Angelo, P. Di Stefano and A.E. Morabito / Computer-Aided Design 110 (2019) 78–91
Fig. 17. The CRSF segmentation for (a) R∗1 1 = 3.1 mm, (b) R∗1 2 = 1.7 mm.
on the value of the search radius R∗1i . Finally, the detail view A of
Fig. 17 shows a CRSF that the methodology here proposed classifies
as a groove.
5. Conclusions
An original method to recognise secondary features in tessel-
lated models is presented. This automatic segmentation process
is not trivial, although a skilled person can perform naturally
the differentiation between secondary and primary features. The
proposed method executes the segmentation of secondary features
by performing an adaptive process suited to resolving the uncer-
tainties that typically affect the geometric recognition process in
tessellated models. This process, based on a fuzzy logic algorithm,
aggregates the adjacent nodes, recognised to be similar in terms
of values of suitable membership functions, into a single feature.
The method is, therefore, able to recognise any constant radius
feature independently on the value of its conventional characteris-
tic radius, previously estimated and used to name the feature. The
methodology performs the CRSF segmentation, recognising a kind
of shapes not generally identified by mesh segmentation methods
that detect only analytical geometries.
The tests performed show that the method achieves credible
results in very critical cases, like those of real objects manufactured
by plastic deformation or fusion. On the other hand, the method-
ology proposed here can fail in the case of highly noisy point
clouds or a poorly sampled surface. These are conditions where
the information contained in the tessellated model is unreliable or
insufficient.
Further work is required to implement the recognition of cham-
fers, which are important secondary features typically found in
mechanical components. Since the method, described in this pa-
per, recognises the sharp edges, it is however potentially able
to identify also the chamfers. This kind of secondary feature is
91
substantially different from the others since it cannot be associated
with a CRSF, but it is a region contained between two sharp edges,
parallel and close to each other.
Acknowledgement
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
[1] Di Angelo L, Di Stefano P, Morabito AE. Automatic evaluation of form errors
in high-density acquired surfaces. Int J Prod Res 2011;49(7):2061–82.
[2] Sheen DP, Son TG, Myung DK, Ryu C, Lee SH, Lee K, et al. Transformation of
a thin-walled solid model into a surface model via solid deflation. Comput
Aided Des 2010;42(8). 720–730.
[3] Zhao L, Tong R, Dong T, Dong J. B-rep model simplification for feature sup-
pressing using local error evaluation. In: Proceedings of the ninth interna-
tional conference on computer supported cooperative work in design, 24–26
May 2005. Coventry, UK: IEEE; 2005, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CSCWD.2005.
194282.
[4] Hariya M, Nonaka N, Shimizu Y, Konishi K, Iwasaka T. Technique for checking
design rules for three-dimensional CAD data. In: 3rd international conference
on computer science and information technology, 9–11 July 2010. Chengdu,
China: IEEE; 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICCSIT.2010.5565010.
[5] Otani K. Automatic FEM mesh generation of 3D mid-surface and solid CAD
model with shape recognition technique. SAE Technical Paper 2016-01-1382,
2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-1382.
[6] Cheng Y, Liu X, Ni Z. Selectively inhibition and recognition treatment strategy
of fillet oriented to manufacturing. J Southeast Univ Nat Sci 2010;40(4):
731–5.
[7] Schnabel R, Wahl R, Klein R. Efficient RANSAC for point-cloud shape detection.
Comput Graph Forum 2007;26(2):214–26.
[8] Di Angelo L, Di Stefano P. Geometric segmentation of 3D scanned surfaces.
Comput Aided Des 2015;62:44–56.
[9] Lavoué G, Dupont F, Baskurt A. A new CAD mesh segmentation method, based
on curvature tensor analysis. Comput Aided Des 2005;37(10):975–87.
[10] Li Y, Wu X, Chrysathou Y, Sharf A, Cohen-Or D, Mitra NJ. Globfit: Consis-
tently fitting primitives by discovering global relations. ACM Trans Graph
2011;30(4). art. no. 52.
[11] Di Stefano P, Bianconi F, Di Angelo L. An approach for feature semantics
recognition in geometric models. Comput Aided Des 2004;36(10):993–1009.
[12] Chen Z, Yu G, Zhang Y. Fillet recognition and suppression in CAD model based
on feature chain(ring). China Mech Eng 2010;22(22):2707–11.
[13] Li B, Liu J. Detail feature recognition and decomposition in solid model.
Comput Aided Des 2002;34(5):405–14.
[14] Cui X, Gao S, Zhou G. An efficient algorithm for recognizing and suppressing
blend features. Comput-Aided Des Appl 2004;1(1–4):421–8.
[15] Joshi N, Dutta D. Feature simplification techniques for freeform surface mod-
els. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 2003;3(3):177–86.
[16] Zhu H, Menq CH. B-rep model simplification by automatic fillet/round sup-
pressing for efficient automatic feature recognition. Comput Aided Des
2002;34(2):109–23.
[17] Jiao X, Alexander PJ. Parallel feature-preserving mesh smoothing. In: Proceed-
ings of international conference on computational science and its applica-
tions. 2005, p. 1180–9.
[18] Bianconi F, Di Stefano P. An intermediate level representation scheme for
secondary features recognition and B-rep model simplification. In: Shape
Modeling International. Seoul, South Korea: IEEE; 2003, p. 99–108.
[19] Di Angelo L, Di Stefano P, Morabito AE. Secondary features segmentation from
high-density tessellated surfaces. Int J Interact Des Manuf 2018;12(3):801–9.
[20] Di Angelo L, Di Stefano P, Morabito AE. The RGM data structure: A nominal in-
terpretation of an acquired high point density model for automatic tolerance
inspection. Int J Prod Res 2012;50(12):3416–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2011.579638.
[21] Di Angelo L, Di Stefano P. Experimental comparison of methods for differential
geometric properties evaluation in triangular meshes. Comput – Aided Des
Appl 2011;8(2):193–210.
[22] Di Angelo L, Di Stefano P. C1 continuities detection in triangular meshes.
Comput Aided Des 2010;42(9). 828–839.
[23] ISO 2768-1 General tolerances— Part1: Tolerances for linear and angular
dimensions without individual tolerance indications.
[24] Cox E. The Fuzzy Systems Handbook. Cambridge, MA: AP Professional; 1994.