skip to main content
research-article

Approximate pyramidal shape decomposition

Published:19 November 2014Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

A shape is pyramidal if it has a flat base with the remaining boundary forming a height function over the base. Pyramidal shapes are optimal for molding, casting, and layered 3D printing. However, many common objects are not pyramidal. We introduce an algorithm for approximate pyramidal shape decomposition. The general exact pyramidal decomposition problem is NP-hard. We turn this problem into an NP-complete problem which admits a practical solution. Specifically, we link pyramidal decomposition to the Exact Cover Problem (ECP). Given an input shape S, we develop clustering schemes to derive a set of building blocks for approximate pyramidal parts of S. The building blocks are then combined to yield a set of candidate pyramidal parts. Finally, we employ Knuth's Algorithm X over the candidate parts to obtain solutions to ECP as pyramidal shape decompositions. Our solution is equally applicable to 2D or 3D shapes, and to shapes with polygonal or smooth boundaries, with or without holes. We demonstrate our algorithm on numerous shapes and evaluate its performance.

References

  1. Achanta, R., Shaji, A., Smith, K., Lucchi, A., Fua, P., and Süsstrunk, S. 2012. SLIC superpixels compared to state-of-the-art superpixel methods. IEEE Trans. Pat. Ana. & Mach. Int. 34, 11, 2274--2282. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Asafi, S., Goren, A., and Cohen-Or, D. 2013. Weak convex decomposition by lines-of-sight. Computer Graphics Forum (SGP) 32, 5, 23--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Calì, J., Calian, D., Amati, C., Kleinberger, R., Steed, A., Kautz, J., and Weyrich, T. 2012. 3D-printing of non-assembly, articulated models. ACM Trans. on Graph (SIGGRAPH Asia) 31, 6, 130:1--130:8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Chandru, V., Rajan, V. T., and Swaminathan, R. 1992. Monotone pieces of chains. ORSA Journal on Computing 4, 4, 439--446.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Chazelle, B. 1984. Convex partitions of polyhedra: a lower bound and worst-case optimal algorithm. SIAM J. Comput. 13, 488--507. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Chvatal, V. 1979. A greedy heuristic for the set-covering problem. Mathematics of Operations Research 4, 3, pp. 233--235. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Cohen-Or, D., Lev-Yehudi, S., Karol, A., and Tal, A. 2003. Inner-cover of non-convex shapes. International Journal of Shape Modeling 9, 2, 223--238.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Douglas, D., and Peucker, T. 1973. Algorithms for the reduction of the number of points required to represent a digitized line or its caricature. The Canadian Cartographer 10, 2, 112--122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Fekete, S. P., and Mitchell, J. S. B. 2001. Terrain decomposition and layered manufacturing. International Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications 11, 06, 647--668.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Heckbert, P. S., and Garland, M. 1997. Survey of polygonal surface simplication algorithms. In SIGGRAPH Course on Multiresolution Surface Modeling.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Knuth, D. 2000. Dancing links. Millenial Perspectives in Computer Science, 159--187.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Li, W., Martin, R. R., and Langbein, F. C. 2009. Molds for meshes: Computing smooth parting lines and undercut removal. IEEE T. Automation Science and Engineering 6, 3, 423--432.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Lien, J.-M., and Amato, N. M. 2007. Approximate convex decomposition of polyhedra. In SPM '07: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM symposium on Solid and physical modeling, ACM Request Permissions. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Liu, R., and Ntafos, S. 1988. On decomposing polygons into uniformly monotone parts. Information Processing Letters 27, 2, 85--89. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Luo, L., Baran, I., Rusinkiewicz, S., and Matusik, W. 2012. Chopper: Partitioning models into 3D-printable parts. ACM Trans. on Graph (SIGGRAPH Asia) 31, 6, 129:1--129:9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. McMains, S., and Chen, X. 2005. Finding undercut-free parting directions for polygons with curved edges. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ochotta, T., and Saupe, D. 2008. Image-based surface compression. Computer Graphics Forum 27, 6, 1647--1663.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Pauly, M., and Gross, M. 2001. Spectral processing of point-sampled geometry. In Proc. of SIGGRAPH, 379--386. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Prévost, R., Whiting, E., Lefebvre, S., and Sorkine-Hornung, O. 2013. Make It Stand: Balancing shapes for 3D fabrication. ACM Trans. on Graph (SIGGRAPH) 32, 4, 81:1--81:10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Priyadarshi, A., and Gupta, S. K. 2004. Geometric algorithms for automated design of multi-piece permanent molds. Computer-Aided Design 36, 3, 241--260.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Rappaport, D., and Rosenbloom, A. 1994. Moldable and castable polygons. Computational Geometry 4, 219--233. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Shamir, A. 2008. A survey on mesh segmentation techniques. Computer Graphics Forum 27, 6, 1539--1556.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Sharvit, D., Chan, J., Tek, H., and Kimia, B. B. 1998. Symmetry-based indexing of image databases. J. Visual Communication and image representation 9, 366--380.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Shi, J., and Malik, J. 2000. Normalized cuts and image segmentation. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on 22, 8, 888--905. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Stava, O., Vanek, J., Benes, B., Carr, N., and Měch, R. 2012. Stress relief: improving structural strength of 3D printable objects. ACM Trans. on Graph (SIGGRAPH) 31, 4, 48:1--48:11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Tor, S. B., and Middleditch, A. E. 1984. Convex decomposition of simple polygons. ACM Trans. on Graph 3, 4 (Oct.), 244--265. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Vazirani, V. V. 2001. Approximation Algorithms. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Wang, W., Wang, T. Y., Yang, Z., Liu, L., Tong, X., Tong, W., Deng, J., Chen, F., and Liu, X. 2013. Cost-effective printing of 3D objects with skin-frame structures. ACM Trans. on Graph (SIGGRAPH Asia) 32, 6, 177:1--177:10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Zelnik-Manor, L., and Perona, P. 2004. Self-tuning spectral clustering. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), vol. 17, 1601--1608.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Approximate pyramidal shape decomposition

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Graphics
        ACM Transactions on Graphics  Volume 33, Issue 6
        November 2014
        704 pages
        ISSN:0730-0301
        EISSN:1557-7368
        DOI:10.1145/2661229
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2014 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 19 November 2014
        Published in tog Volume 33, Issue 6

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader