About Solid Modeling by Using FeatureBased Models

Fredy Jara Literature Review 3 Computer Graphics II Spring 1996 Computer Science Department University of Massachusetts at Lowell

Abstract
The main objective of traditional modeling systems has been the representation of the shape of an object accurately and reliably as a computer understandable information. These models cannot be directly used to drive applications such as manufacturing planning on CAM system or handling and assembling in robotics applications since some information required for these tasks is totally absent in such models. In the last few years two new design paradigms have emerged: feature-based design and constraint-based design which addressing aspects that allow or facilitate the integration between modeling and applications. In this work we review a paper which proposes a hybrid representation of Feature-Based models.

1 Introduction
There are three dominant representations used for solid modeling: Constructive Solid Geometry (CSG), Boundary representation (Brep) and Spatial Subdivision. These three models have served as a basis for the develop of several CAD systems but their use have been basically limited to drafting purposes since, in general, they have a lack of support of adequate means for dealing with functionality either at the level of representation or at the level of provide efficient mechanisms to extract and manipulate such a functionality from the geometric and topological representation they use internally. The basic problem with traditional applications based on the representations before mentioned is that in detailing the object geometry in terms of low level entities the overall meaning of the object is hidden. In these models the main objective is the final shape, and the meaning of the shape, which may represent the functionality in the application context, is not maintained in the model. In addition in many applications contexts, a description of the nominal geometry is not sufficient and this description must be complemented with tolerances and other constraints. The new design paradigms expose a need to reconsider solid representation at a different level of abstraction which will allow the develop of more intelligent design systems and will provide the link between design and application. Basically the new system modelers must be able to capture and use the design objectives related to function and manufacturability. In the past five years these paradigms of design are appearing in commercial practice and at present, considerable attention is been focused on its potential. Features are seen as an effective mean

to provide a more abstract product model than geometry alone. In the new design methodologies we need to represent entire classes of solids, comprising a generic design. Solids in a class are built structurally in the same way, from possibly complex shape primitives, and are instantiated subject to constraints and dimensions that interrelate specific shape elements [5]. Important research issues must be done in order to define precisely classes of solids, representation of generic solids, and ways to edit such designs. The paper we are dealing with was presented in Proceedings of the IFIP in Japan in 1991 by Bianca Falcidieno and Franca Giannini. Both have been related with several works about feature-based modeling [1, 2, 3 ,4], in which appropriated representation schemes of features have been explored in order to integrate features and constraints in modeling systems. The rest of this work is organized as follow. Section 2 presents a background about solid modeling systems in general. Section 3 present issues to be considered in feature-base modeling. Section 3 presents a brief discussion about the proposed modeling scheme. Section 4 presents the conclusions.

2 Brief review about solid modeling

We present a brief review about the three main representations used for solid modeling. Most of this review was taken from [5]. 2.1 Constructive Solid Geometry (CSG) In this scheme solid are represented as a set-theoretic Boolean expression of primitive solid objects, of a simpler structure. Both the surface and the interior of the final solid are thereby implicitly defined. The traditional CSG primitives are block, sphere, cylinder, cone, and torus. A solid is then represented as an algebraic expression that uses rigid motions and regularized set operations. The traditional regularized operations are union, intersection, and difference. Each solid has a default coordinate system. Using a rigid transformation, the solid is positioned relative to a global coordinate system. A Boolean operation then combines the solids with respect to the common coordinate system. Extrusion, sweep along a straight line; and revolution, a sweep about an axis, have been used to obtain more general primitives. 2.2 Boundary Representation (Brep) In this scheme solids are represented in terms of individual surfaces, edges, and vertices. A distinction is drawn between the topological description in which the three primitive topological entities, faces, edges, and vertices, are explicitly represented together their mutual adjacency relation, and the geometric location and shape of these entities. Two major families of Brep appear in the literature. One family restricts the solid surfaces to oriented manifolds in which every edge is incident to two faces, and every vertex is the apex of a single cone of incident edges and faces. The second family allows oriented nonmanifolds in which edges are adjacent to an even number of faces 2.3 Spatial subdivision. In this scheme solids are decomposed into cells each with a simple topological structure and often with a simple geometric structure. Two categories of spatial

subdivision can be considered [5]: Boundary conforming, and boundary approximating Boundary conforming includes meshes and binary spatial partition tree. The first one is used in finite element analysis. The mesh elements can be geometric tetrahedra, hexahedra, or simple polyhedra, or they can be deformations of topological polyhedra so that curved boundaries can be approximated exact. Binary spatial partition trees are recursive subdivisions of 3D-space. Each interior node of the tree separates space into two disjoint point sets. In the simplest case, the root denotes a separator plane. All the points bellow or on the plane are represented by one subtree, all the points above the plane are represented by the other subtree. The two point sets are recursively subdivided by half planes at the subtree nodes. The leaves of the tree represent cells that are labeled in or out. The planes are usually face planes of a polyhedron, and the union of all cells labeled in is the polyhedron modeled. Boundary approximating representations are grids and octrees. In grids, space is subdivided in conformance with a coordinate system. Typically, the subdivision is into hexahedra whose sides are parallel to the Cartesian coordinate planes. Different coordinate systems will have a different division scheme. On the other hand octree divides a cube into eight subcubes. Each subcube may be further subdivided recursively. Cubes and their subdivision are labeled white, black or gray. A grey cube is one that has been subdivided. A subcube is black if it is inside the solid to be represented, white if it is outside.

3 The architecture of the system proposed

Feature is a concept which can be defined in terms of generic shape and engineering semantics. A feature is a physical constituent of a part which synthesized a particular meaning in some parts of the productive process [3]. Therefore, feature is a concept which relates form and function. The first one is depending on the model and the other on the application. One of traditional models' problems is the lack of a median level of information in the model between the very high level (volumetric primitives) and very low level (individual topological entities) which is precisely the level at which information is required by applications programs. The integration between the design process and the application programs require of this information level and features may therefore hold the key to the integration of geometric modeling systems and application programs. Conceptually, either Brep or CSG modelers are capable of representing and manipulating features, but the common opinion is that this would be best done by utilizing both approaches [2]. As a consequence of that several researchers have proposed hybrid CSG-Boundary schemes for represent feature information in the framework of solid modeling. These hybrid representations can be CSG-based or Boundary-based depending on which model is considered to be the master model in their definition. Different systems have been used for creating a form feature based design. Two approaches have been considered by researchers in order to obtain a feature based representation: design with features and feature extraction. More recently systems which use both approaches have been proposed.

[2] describes an approach (feature extraction) which allow the automatic extraction and representation of form features in the framework of solid modeling. That approach is based on a boundary representation of the solid model data which is restructured in a process of two steps. In a first step, a hybrid model defined as a hierarchy of boundary volumes is created. In the process of restructuring the boundary representation data, the geometric entities are classified and the relationships between adjacent entities is determined. The result is the explicit representation of so-called generic shape features, divided into two general classes, protrusions and depressions. In the second step, the hierarchical representation of the object with its shape features is reorganized into a context dependent representation by associating sets of shape features functionally related in the application context. This second process involves searching for patterns in the hierarchical hybrid model and refining the hierarchical representation by grouping sets of its components. This work was based on a method proposed by Kyprianou in his Ph.D. Dissertation at the University of Cambridge in 1980. [1] defines the following issues that a feature-based model should be have:
o

o o

In reference to the geometric representation for a feature-based model It should support direct access to evaluate entities for locating features and assigning tolerances and attributes, and at the same time it should provide a high level description of the object. The system must be very flexible and suitable for different purposes, such as design, manufacturing, and inspection. The system should provide the means to be possible to represent and manipulate additional data that do not appear in a resultant shape, such as reference frames or constructions entities like centre lines or interior faces. The range of representable objects should be enlarged and, in order to cover the complete design spectrum efficiently, a representational scheme able to handle wireframe, surface and solid entities in a unified manner is required. CSG and Brep present some advantages and disadvantages but both are somewhat complementary. Systems must take advantage of this fact..

The modeling scheme proposed in the paper we are dealing with addresses each of these issues. Its more important contributions are: First they use a double description of a feature-based model: a primary representation in terms of generic form features, and a set of viewpoint dependent feature-based representations which are created by transformations that are viewpoint specific. In this way shape and feature can be handled more properly, the first one more general and the second one more particular. Second they support a combination of the two approaches has been considered by researchers: design with feature, and feature extraction. The first approach allows the incorporation of high level abstractions such as functionality and design purpose. Given that features are strictly dependent on the context, the models produced are also context dependent hence they cannot be shared between different functional viewpoints. The second approach is closed related with primitive components of a solid model of the object, such as faces, and edges. The problem with this approach is that even though some systems have proved that is possible to recognize some

features from the geometric model, it has not yet been proven that such methods work for all kind of features. The properly combination of both approaches in an integrated system allows the creation of a more general modeling system suitable to be used in different application context. Third they introduce the concept of neutral description which is created taking into account geometric and topological arrangements of faces, edges and vertices, and is independent from the application context. This model is used as an input to modules called Converters. These converters allow the transformation of the neutral description model (application independent) into a model dependent of the application context. For N different applications, N(N-1) transformations (converters) are required, but by using the neutral description model only N converters are required. The neutral description is based on the so-called Shape Feature Object Graph (SFOG). This is a hybrid model (Boundary/Volumetric) that can be considered a neutral format description of a feature-based model, since it is a form feature oriented but independent from a specific application. The graph representation proposed presents several advantages: first it makes the topological and geometric relationships between features explicit. Second it maintains information about the surrounding volumes and feature neighbors which is required in the context of some applications. Fourth they provide a flexible user interaction. Three ways of interaction are available to the user. One called Geometric Model Interaction allows the user to define a traditional boundary model of the object which is used for other module to create the before referred Neutral Model. The second way of interaction, called Design with Feature allows the user to directly create a feature-based model for a given context. A library of feature descriptions is used in order to create such a model. The third way of interaction, called Feature Definition Interface, allows user to construct feature descriptions from examples (i.e. feature instances on an existing geometric model). A dual feature description is generated for this last interface: one oriented to facilitate the process of feature recognition, and another one to facilitate its utilization in the modeling with feature. Fifth The proposed model is modular. The different modules provide the required level of abstraction claimed in the new paradigms of design solid-model systems.

4 Conclusions
The hybrid representation in both at the level of geometrical model (CSG or Brep) and at the level of strategy of feature implementation appear as the most important result from this work. The model so obtained is suitable to be use efficiently in different contexts. This is considered by the authors as the basis of the next generation feature-based models.

5 References
[1] Falcidieno, B., Giannini, F., Porzia, C., and Spagnuolo, M. "Hybrid Representation of Feature-Based Model", Proceedings of the IFIP WG 5.10 Working Conference: Modeling in Computer Graphics, Tokyo, Japan, April 8-12, 1991, pp. 125-139.

[2] Falcidieno, B., and Giannini, F. " A System for Extracting and Representing Feature Information Driven by the Application Context", In Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Cincinnati, Ohio May 13-18, 1990, pp. 1672-1678. [3] Falcidieno, B., and Giannini, F. "Extraction and Organization of Form Features into a Structured Boundary Model", In Proceedings of the European Computer Graphics Conference EUROGRAPHICS'87, Amsterdam, August 24-28, 1987, pp. 249-259. [4] Brunetti, G., DeMartino, T., Falcidieno, B., and Habinger, S. "A Relational Model for Interactive Manipulation of Form Features based on Algebraic Geometry", In Proceedings Third Symposium on Solid Modeling and Applications, Salt Lake City, Utah, May 17-19, 1995, pp.95-103. [5] Hoffmann, C., and Rossignac, J. "A road Map to Solid Modeling", IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, Volume 2, Number 1, March 1996.

7. IMPLEMENTATION
An integrated part featuremodeling and process planning system has been developed. The simulation process of the engine crankshaft was selected as the case study. The entire system was developed in the Windows environment using the C and C++ programming languages. The following sections present the operations of the system which was created by adopting the above presented concepts and methods.

7.1. Feature-based part modeling environment

A dynamic part feature model in RRM should be able to represent different types of parts and different classes of part features as well as providing options to modify the feature and the part. To meet these requirements, a dynamic data structure for feature representation and a feature-based part modeling environment have been designed and developed. The featurebased part model consists of three key components (as shown in Fig. 3). CLOSE

Fig. 3. Dynamic part featuremodeling

7.1.1. Feature syntax

The syntax defines geometric construction of a part or a feature, especially the relationships among the part form-features. For rotational parts, the relationships among the form-features are mainly adjacent and subordinate. In our system, part form-features are divided into main features (such as outer cylinder, inner cylinder, cone, end-face, etc.) and auxiliary features (such as fillet, chamfer, etc.). The relationships among main features are adjacent, i.e. `previous' and `next' (as `Prev-Fea' and `Next-Fea' buttons in Fig. 3), and those between main and auxiliary features are subordinate, i.e. `father' and `son' (as `Father-Fea' and `Son-Fea' buttons in Fig. 3). An auxiliary feature may have its own auxiliary features. This form-feature binary-tree

structure is designed as the framework of the part model and is suitable for different types of rotational parts representations.

7.1.2. Feature semantics

The feature semantics describes information associated with the feature geometry, tolerance, and the technologies used for management and manufacturing. Only by the feature semantics description does a feature become a meaningful geometric entity. The dynamic feature model that we have developed can be used for different feature semantics representations, and is not limited by the amount of attributes representing the feature semantics. We provide a dynamic chain structure for feature attributes representation, and the amount and names of attributes relying on the feature itself. As shown in Fig. 3, buttons labeled `Add', `Modify', `Previous', etc. for forming parameters, locating parameters, and formposition tolerances operations are used for feature attributes' definitions. An independent feature library has been established for the user to select from as well as to add, instead of feature enumeration. In addition, the user can define special attributes for a feature and add it to the part model at any stage of the process.

7.1.3. Feature operations

Some necessary feature operations such as `Add', `Delete', `Save', and `Save As' were designed and integrated with the form-feature structure. Because these operations are designed as `public' class, each feature can inherit them and the part feature structure and feature attributes can be easily modified. In the lower righthand corner, the `Evaluate' button activates the process design module and thus facilitates the manufacturability evaluation. The `Feed-back' button allows user to check the evaluation and to receive suggestions from the system at any time after the part is evaluated. With the capabilities of these three key components, the feature modeling window in Fig. 3 can be used as a tool for feature-based part design. For example, the feature definition process of a main journal of a crankshaft can be accomplished as follows: 1. Select `Outer-cylinder' from the Current feature class listbox, all its related parameters' names are then filled into the Name listboxes of Forming Parameter, Locating Parameter, and Form-Position Tolerance sections.

2. Add the main journal overall information including Feature ID, Name, Finish, etc., into the model. For forming parameter, select necessary parameters from the Name listbox (such as diameter, length, etc.), assign values to them, use Add button to add each parameter into the feature parameter chain. Use Modify, Previous, and Next buttons to change and check the parameters defined. A similar method is used for Locating parameter and Form-Position Tolerance sections. 3. Use Add button located on the lower right-hand corner to add new features into the part feature model. Use Define, Prev-Fea, and Next-Fea buttons to define the new features which are adjacent to current one. If this main journal has sub-features, e.g., two undercut-fillets, the Son of current feature button will be used to define the undercut-fillets as auxiliary features. 4.

Use Delete button to delete a feature or its sub-features. The deleted feature will be removed from the part and its space will be filled by going through an interactive process between the user and the model. Other editing buttons are also provided to the user for a better feature modification operation.