0 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

80 Aufrufe22 SeitenMy thesis on measuring the quality of quadrilateral meshes. Currently there are no reliable or automatic ways to calculate a numerical score for a quadrilateral mesh. Having such a method would help with future quad mesh algorithms, by optimizing for a "higher" score.

Jul 14, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

My thesis on measuring the quality of quadrilateral meshes. Currently there are no reliable or automatic ways to calculate a numerical score for a quadrilateral mesh. Having such a method would help with future quad mesh algorithms, by optimizing for a "higher" score.

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

80 Aufrufe

My thesis on measuring the quality of quadrilateral meshes. Currently there are no reliable or automatic ways to calculate a numerical score for a quadrilateral mesh. Having such a method would help with future quad mesh algorithms, by optimizing for a "higher" score.

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Finite Element Analysis Of Composite Element For FRP Reinforced Concrete Slab By Using ANSYS
- Finite Element Method and Computational Structural Dynamics by Shrikhande, Manish
- Explanation Plate Staad
- Practice Makes Perfect 5 Transformations)
- fem6 29-10-2015
- SURVEY OF LOW AND HIGH FREQUENCY METHODS FOR ANTENNA FIELD PROBLEMS
- 250
- 100907 EMI Future Security Tunnel Structure Subjected to Explosions
- Pro m Tutorial
- William R. Bauer, Russell A. Lund and James H. White- Twist and writhe of a DNA loop containing intrinsic bends
- Jcerda Notes FE0
- 3D_CAD
- 07 Mesh
- Teaching Portfolio
- Deformation Vibration 1-8
- Comparison Ejsr29415
- FEA QP Last 8 Semesters
- Out
- IMO Geometry
- FRANC3D V7 Training - Part 4 - Crack Insert

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 22

Phillip Lu

Advised by Dianna Xu

Haverford College, Department of Computer Science

Abstract

A method of analyzing the quality of quadrilateral meshing algorithm is presented. By running each quadrilateral of the mesh through

John Robinsons Continuum-Region-Element (CRE) method, the resultant numeric values correlate with the shape parameters of each

quadrilateral. We find that Robinsons Jacobian determinant, even

after accounting for scale, is only as good as a mesh quality measure

as aspect ratio as defined by the CRE method.

Keywords. quadrilateral mesh, mesh quality, mesh analysis

Introduction

shapes constructed from simple polygons: a collection of points, edges, and

polygonal faces that represents a 2D or 3D object. Though mainly used in

computer graphics, these meshes have a variety of applications, from highorder surface modelling to data compression [3].

Since most 3D geometrical objects have two dominant directions, quadrilateral meshes are particularly well suited for representing such objects, given

that individual quadrilaterals have two pairs of edges that run (ideally) orthogonal to each other [3]. Applications for which preserving the shape and

form of the 3D object is of importance would therefore prefer quadrilateral

meshes over triangular meshes, since transformations of a triangular mesh

would not guarantee that the overall shape is preserved. However, due to the

difficulties inherent in creating quadrilateral meshes, the majority of research

1

effort has gone into triangle mesh construction. As such, though there are

several methods of measuring the quality of a triangle mesh [2, 5], there is

no widely accepted similar metric to measure the quality of a quadrilateral

mesh.

Beyond simple metrics like the amount of polygons in a mesh, it is difficult

to find a measurement of quality that represents the entire mesh without

resorting to measurement of the individual polygonal elements. As such,

almost all mesh quality measures examine the shape quality of each polygon.

As Eppstein states in his presentation to the Meshing Roundtable in 2001,

there are numerous measures of a triangle, such as ratio of circumcricle to

incircle radii, ratio of diameter to height, or perimeter squared to area [5].

However, he mentions that the quality guarantees for quad/hex meshes [are]

much less developed. It is easy to see that finding a metric for triangles is

easier than finding one for quadrilaterals: while triangles can always be inscribed within a circle (the smaller the circle is, the better a triangle is),

not all quadrilaterals can be inscribed within a circle (i.e. non-cyclic quadrilaterals). While diameter to height is a consistent measure of a triangles

quality, it is not for that of a quadrilaterals, as using that measure would

return the same value for both squares and a rhombus (same diameter, same

height). However, we would not want the measure for a square and rhombus to be the same, since the preference for quadrilateral meshes over other

types of meshes is partially due to the quadrilateral having two dominant

local directions, typically associated with principal curvature directions. We

would thus prefer to have a mesh composed of mostly squares, where the two

dominant local directions are, for the most part, orthogonal to each other,

and thus accurately representing curvature directions, as opposed to a mesh

composed of mostly rhombuses, especially extremely tapered ones.

Measuring the quality of a quadrilateral is significantly more difficult than

that of a triangle, since there are more geometric features in a quadrilateral

that need to be properly reflected in the metric itself (i.e. skew, aspect ratio)

than in a triangle. While John Robinson was primarily concerned about

finite element stress testing in his Continuum-Region-Element (CRE) method

paper, he shows that the determinant of the quadrilaterals Jacobian matrix

is a numerical variable that reflects all significant features of a quadrilateral

[8]. This paper will attempt to evaluate the Jacobian determinants viability

as a measurement of quadrilateral mesh.

Throughout this paper, I will use the shorter term quad to refer to

quadrilateral.

2

Related Works

As mentioned before, this paper will be an evaluation of the validity of Robinsons CRE method [8] in mesh quality measurement. Thus, this paper will

draw heavily from the terminology and methods of Robinsons paper and

book (i.e. aspect ratio, skew, and taper are all defined within his works,

and will be integrated within my analysis). Robinson was concerned about

having a general method of finite element stress testing: a method of analyzing the forces on and within physical structures (planes, bridges, dams, etc.)

by breaking them down into many small discrete structural pieces (finite

element) [9]. Since these individual finite elements are made up of simple polygons (polygons with non-intersecting perimeters), there is significant

work done on analyzing the effects of pressure, torque, and bending on materials modeled by simple polygons. As such, the CRE method, while originally

developed as an element testing procedure, can be used to measure a quads

aspect ratio, skew, and taper, amongst other measurements of shape.

The first quad mesh algorithm I will be testing my quality measurement

on will be Atalay, Ramaswami, and Xus quad-tree algorithm [1] for generating a quad mesh. I will be using the mesh quality measures section of

their paper and comparing my results with theirs. The algorithm itself will

be discussed in section 2.1

While the Bommes et al. survey of quad-mesh algorithms [3] contains

multiple quad-mesh algorithms, few would mesh over a 2D point cloud, fewer

still have publicly available executables. Thus, I will be using Jonathan

Richard Shewchuks publicly available triangle mesh generator [10] to create

an initial triangle mesh, from which I will convert to a quadrilateral mesh.

A discussion of this process will be in section 2.2.

2.1

Atalay, Ramaswami, and Xus algorithm for generating quad meshes relies on

using quadtrees effectively [1]. A quadtree, effectively a tree data structure

such that each node has either no children (leaf), or exactly 4 children. Atalay

et al.s algorithm first takes the point set, and creates a quadtree, each node

splitting whenever it has more than two elements in it. This effectively

means that each node will contain at most one point. Further, Atalay et al.s

algorithm ensures that no two neighbouring structure are two or more levels

3

apart, and uses this property to apply quad templates for the deepest level

of the subdivision. After that, the algorithm can apply general templates

for stitching together nodes of arbitrary levels. The existence of general

templates allows geometric analysis of the worst-case configuration, which

yields the minimum angle of 18.43 and a maximum angle of 171.86.

Atalay et al.s algorithm takes 2D point set information and outputs a

Geomview Object File Format (.OFF) file, that consists of the meshs vertices

and faces.

2.2

Shewchuks Triangle

outputs of Shewchuks Triangle program. Triangle can take in point sets,

4

inside the circumcircle of any triangle in the triangulation). A Delaunay triangulation will maximize the minimum angle of the resultant triangle mesh,

given that no additional points can be added [4]. Every point set is also

guaranteed to have a Delaunay triangulation.

An advantage to using Shewchuks Triangle program is that I am able to

specify certain quality guarantees. I will thus be using Triangle to output two

sets of data: one with no quality guarantee, and one with a quality guarantee

that the minimum angle will be at least 20 degrees.

This by itself should not be of any concern. After all, my goal here is not

to analyze the quad meshing algorithms in-depth, but instead to use Robinsons metrics on the meshes and comparing the result. However, Shewchuks

Triangle only outputs triangle meshes, and so we need a way to convert the

triangle mesh into a quad mesh. While there exists several methods of tri-toquad mesh algorithms, few of them offer an implementation of them online.

Instead, we will do a crude tri-to-quad algorithm that is simple to implement,

though offers nothing in terms of quality guarantees.

For each triangle in the triangle mesh, we add four additional points at

the centroid, and the three midpoints at their respective edges. We then

add three edges, from centroid to the three midpoints. We now have three

quadrilaterals in place of the triangle. We do this conversion for all the

triangles in the mesh, and we will end up with a quad mesh. See Figure 2

for example.

While this method is crude and offers no specific guarantee, this algorithm

will suffice for providing a mesh generator to compare to. Generally, we

expect a tri-to-quad mesh algorithm to have worse metrics than direct quad

mesh generation algorithms, especially tri-to-quad mesh algorithms that do

not apply mesh smoothing or mesh simplification afterwards. This gives us a

very general hypothesis to test: our metric for mesh quality should be better

on Atalay et. als algorithm than on Shewchuks algorithm after tri-to-quad

mesh conversion.

Method

how forces work on and within 3-dimensional, complex objects, represented

by and broken down into numerous discrete, elementary pieces. While the

5

(b) Quad mesh by running the tri-to-quad mesh algorithm over the triangulation.

method was designed to work on any shape of element with any number of

nodes, the elementary shape he derives all the equations in the paper from

is the quad [8]. Since bad shapes can affect the results of finite element

analysis, Robinson developed the CRE method to find the shape parameters that differentiate one shape to another, so as to be able to identify

bad shapes prior to conducting finite element analysis via an automated

analysis system.

In his paper, Robinson shows that any quad shape can be constructed

given four parameters: aspect ratio (AR), skew (), and the respective taper

in two principle directions (Tx , Ty ) [8]. He further shows that given the coordinates of the four points on the quad, one can plug in equations to find all

four shape parameters, the proof of which can be found in Robinsons paper.

I will explain these equations in detail in the sections 3.1 and 3.2 below.

The method and structure for comparing the different algorithms will be

discussed in section 3.3.

3.1

Each of our quads exist as four points in some global Cartesian coordinate

system. To ease calculations and to make sure the quad is in the right

orientation (see Figure 3), we need to convert to a local Cartesian coordinate

system [9]. To do this, the four vectors from the centroid going through

the four bisectors of the quad edges is used (i.e. V 05 being the vector from

the centroid to the bisector of the segment from vertex 1 to vertex 2. See

Figure 4). The corresponding V 06 is used as the vector to define the local x

vector (

x ). To find the corresponding y vector, we cross V 06 with V 07 to

get the normal vector to the plane of the quad (corresponding to the local

z vector,

z ). With

x and

z defined, we can then find the

y by crossing

x.

With the local coordinate system defined, we can now convert the four

points into the new coordinate system by projecting the old Cartesian coordinates onto the new vectors, like so:

xi = V 0i

yi = V 0i

7

where i from 1 to 4 indicates the four respective vertices of the quad, and

V 0i is the vector from the centroid to that particular vertex. Thus, we now

have all four vertices in the local coordinate system.

The interpolation function from the old system to the new system can

be also expressed in the following equation, where and are curvilinear

coordinates with limits 1;

x = e1 + e2 + e3 + e4

y = f1 + f2 + f3 + f4

The curvilinear coordinates (, ) of the four points are (1, 1), (1, 1),

(1, 1), (1, 1) for points 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively (Figure 3). The e and f

coefficients are given in the following equations:

Point 0 indicates centroid. Bisectors shown.

1

1

f1 = (y1 + y2 + y3 + y4 )

e1 = (x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 )

4

4

1

1

e2 = (x1 + x2 + x3 x4 )

f2 = (y1 + y2 + y3 y4 )

4

4

1

1

f3 = (y1 y2 + y3 + y4 )

e3 = (x1 x2 + x3 + x4 )

4

4

1

1

e4 = (x1 x2 + x3 x4 )

f4 = (y1 y2 + y3 y4 )

4

4

We can now produce the shape parameters by using the coefficients produced above.

3.2

Shape Parameters

The four coefficients of e and f each are closely related to the features of the

quad. While I will be explaining how each coefficients affect the features,

Figure 5 provides a quick glance at what the coefficients do.

e1 and f1 may be the most straight-forward coefficients to explain. Since

e1 is the sum of the four x coordinates divided by four, this is the average

value of x. Likewise, f1 represents the average value of y. The coordinates

(e1 , f1 ) thus points to the centroid of the quad.

9

the original rectangle. We can see this by construing e2 as actually being

1

1

4 ((x2 x1 ) + (x3 x4 )) and f3 as being 4 ((y3 y2 ) + (y4 y1 )). Keeping in

mind the orientation of the points (Figure 3), (x2 x1 ) and (x3 x4 ) represent

the edges of the original rectangle parallel to the x-axis, while (y3 y2 ) and

10

(y4 y1 ) represent the edges of the original rectangle parallel to the y-axis. By

halving the respective sums, we find the average length of the line segments

parallel to their respective axis. By halving the result again, we find the

half-length of the line segments.

e3 and f2 both represent a similar concept: the length between the bisector of a segment on the original rectangle to its respective point on a

skewed parallelogram (see Figure 5c). Again, we can see that e3 is actually

1

1 1

2 ( 2 (x3 x2 ) + 2 (x4 x1 )). Since (x3 x2 ) and (x4 x1 ) represent twice the

distance between the vertex to the respective point on the original rectangle in the x-axis, 12 (x3 x2 ) and 12 (x4 x1 ) represent just the distance.

1

1 1

2 ( 2 (x3 x2 ) + 2 (x4 x1 )) thus represents the average distance of the two.

The logic follows for f2 on the y-axis.

e4 and f4 both represent the distance from a point on the tapered quadrilateral (resembling a trapezoid) to its respective point on the original rectangle. The logic is similar to that of the other coefficients. Taper causes

points 1 and 3 to move in one direction, and points 2 and 4 to move in the

other (as seen when comparing the movement of the vertices on a rectangle

as it gradually becomes a trapezoid). Thus, to measure the average distance

of movement on the x-axis, we add x1 and x3 while subtracting x2 and x4 to

find the total distance of taper. Dividing by 4 yields the average distance

of taper.

The shape parameters are given in Robinsons paper as the following [8]:

e2

f3

e3

skew =

f3

f4

taper in the x-direction(Tx ) =

f3

e4

taper in the y-direction(Ty ) =

e2

aspect ratio =

or

f3

e2

(largest)

We can easily see how e2 and f3 are related to the aspect ratio. e2

represents the half-width, f3 represents the half-length; by dividing one over

the other and taking the bigger of the two, we get the aspect ratio (width

over length, or length over width, whichever is bigger).

Regarding skew, since e3 represents the absolute distance of skew in the

x direction, we need a way of scaling so that if the shape is identical, our

11

metric for skew does not increase as the shape becomes larger. f3 is chosen

for this, as it is a scale of the associated parallelogram in the y direction.

e3

Thus, skew =

f3

Regarding the two tapers, e4 and f4 represent the emphabsolute distance

of taper in the x and y direction, respectively. Similar to what we did with

skew, we need to ground the distance to the size of the quadrilateral. Thus,

taper in the x direction would use the half-width e2 , and taper in the y

f4

e4

direction would use the half-length f3 . Thus, taperx = , and tapery =

f3

f2

From Robinsons paper [8]: the Jacobian matrix for a flat (projected)

quadrilateral is given by:

x

[J] =

x

y

(e2 + e4 ) (f2 + f4 )

=[

]

(e3 + e4 ) (f3 + f4 )

y

Which, in turn, can be refactored using the shape metrics in the following:

det[J] = f32 (AR)(1 + Tx + (Ty

Skew

Tx ))

AR

As we can see, all four shape parameters are present within the determinant, in addition to the half-length of the basic rectangle. For analysis,

we will be taking the determinant at the third vertex of the quadrilateral

(top-right), as that vertex has the curvilinear coordinate where = = 1.

Due to the presence of the half-length, the size of the quadrilateral will

affect its Jacobian determinant. This, plus the possibility of having negative

tapers which can actually reduce the determinant to below the determinant

of a square, have led me to suggest a new metric, Modified determinant, for

quadrilateral quality, by removing the mentioned metrics from the equation:

M odDet[J] = (AR)(1 + Tx + (Ty

Skew

Tx ))

AR

Again, we will use only the third vertex of the quadrilateral for analysis.

12

Since the aspect ratio, skew, both tapers, and the Jacobian determinant

are all calculable from only the four points of a quad, these calculations can

be implemented in a relatively straight-forward way. Since quad meshes are

made up of quad elements by definition, I can run the CRE method over all

the quads in the mesh and find out the average of all four respective shape

elements and the Jacobian determinant.

Running the mesh generation algorithm over a set of different inputs

would yield many quad meshes derived from an algorithm. By using the

average value of the shape elements from all the quads from all the meshes

generated by a single algorithm, we can compare that average to that of other

algorithms.

3.3

Comparison Method

I have written a program that takes in a quad mesh in Geomview Object File

Format (.OFF), and outputs the average and worst metric of quads in the

mesh using the method discussed previously. Using this program, for each

mesh generation algorithm I examine, I will run and record the metrics over

several selected point sets. This includes 6 sets of points placed randomly in

various quantities (10, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000) and a set of 303 points that

is a polygonal representation of Lake Superior. The 6 sets of random points,

once generated, is tested on all the algorithms: all the meshing algorithms

are tested on the same data set.

The metrics that I will specifically compare with are the following:

Total quads

Average/worst

Average/worst

Average/worst

Average/worst

Average/worst

Average/worst

AR

Skew value

Taper in the x-axis

Taper in the y-axis

Jacobian determinant

Modified Jacobian determinant

The tables below show the average (Table 1) and worst (Table 2) metrics of

the resultant meshes using the specified algorithm and the specified input.

13

Total quads

Avg. AR

Avg. skew value

Avg. taperx

Avg. tapery

Avg. Jacobian det.

Avg. mod. det.

10 pts

50 pts

100 pts

200 pts

500 pts

1000 pts

801

1.182521

0.187232

0.15145

0.173889

119.4661

1.609149

3768

1.207838

0.176465

0.156579

0.16305

31.66326

1.631948

7613

1.191341

0.176154

0.151035

0.163772

16.43845

1.601269

15074

1.200362

0.176752

0.150312

0.159986

8.39404

1.608572

37219

1.202959

0.175277

0.149911

0.158285

3.417593

1.610947

75057

1.197838

0.176673

0.149348

0.161002

1.698783

1.605722

Lake Superior

(303 pts)

24444

1.198281

0.185968

0.155988

0.172206

0.013589

1.629233

Total quads

Avg. AR

Avg. skew value

Avg. taperx

Avg. tapery

Avg. Jacobian det.

Avg. mod. det.

10 pts

50 pts

100 pts

200 pts

500 pts

1000 pts

39

5.587552

2.81124

0.25

0.361675

338.2453

8.636394

273

4.619727

2.498871

0.25

0.320704

70.20836

7.061956

555

4.916503

2.540989

0.25

0.329417

51.46118

7.643117

1152

3.703014

1.768101

0.25

0.321119

20.99207

5.718958

2949

4.028027

1.965916

0.25

0.312787

50.31810

6.274875

5934

3.658026

1.790858

0.25

0.309766

4.078406

5.601143

Lake Superior

(303 pts)

1758

5.456112

2.884117

0.25

0.358115

0.031532

8.545263

Total quads

Avg. AR

Avg. skew value

Avg. taperx

Avg. tapery

Avg. Jacobian det.

Avg. mod. det.

10 pts

50 pts

100 pts

200 pts

500 pts

1000 pts

126

1.649084

0.510837

0.25

0.289354

35.49717

2.493724

489

1.647021

0.513869

0.25

0.284134

28.91249

2.475079

1032

1.639505

0.505065

0.25

0.281548

14.93490

2.456549

1935

1.647352

0.508918

0.25

0.282497

8.27568

2.470872

4830

1.643218

0.500012

0.25

0.282193

3.483061

2.464108

9921

1.660241

0.516299

0.25

0.281665

1.69971

2.488185

Lake Superior

(303 pts)

3339

1.678473

0.526546

0.25

0.281482

0.005471

2.514221

Table 1.c Shewchuk Triangle with minimum 20 angles, tri-to-quad meshing average metrics

14

Worst

Worst

Worst

Worst

Worst

Worst

AR

skew value

taperx

tapery

Jacobian det.

mod. det.

10 pts

50 pts

100 pts

200 pts

500 pts

1000 pts

3.000000

1.145833

0.6

0.730798

4783.264

4.89

3.000004

1.333333

0.6

0.730798

2990.188

4.890005

3.000003

1.333333

0.6

0.730798

3140.657

4.890003

3.000007

1.333334

0.6

0.730799

3153.046

4.890004

3.000027

1.875

0.600002

0.7308

3157.515

4.89001

3.000055

1.875002

0.600002

0.730805

3160.102

4.890047

Lake Superior

(303 pts)

3.00073

1.875004

0.600029

0.730854

17.503433

4.890585

Worst.

Worst.

Worst.

Worst.

Worst.

Worst.

AR

skew value

taperx

tapery

Jacobian det.

mod. det.

10 pts

50 pts

100 pts

200 pts

500 pts

1000 pts

42.79535

28.77125

0.25

1.823832

2448.629

64.19302

281.9245

127.9088

0.25

1.044526

3334.426

422.8869

466.2196

294.6275

0.25

7.098919

4191.789

699.3325

559.2251

329.0671

0.25

4.005084

1702.153

838.8374

1777.939

1254.819

0.25

9.556236

107129.7

2666.950

1174.521

624.1278

0.25

3.096078

964.6050

1761.781

Lake Superior

(303 pts)

530.1884

351.1376

0.25

3.855682

8.472251

795.2556

Worst.

Worst.

Worst.

Worst.

Worst.

Worst.

AR

skew value

taperx

tapery

Jacobian det.

mod. det.

10 pts

50 pts

100 pts

200 pts

500 pts

1000 pts

3.34753

1.656701

0.25

0.018427

276.9116

5.021296

4.425987

1.820182

0.25

0.066429

661.7325

6.63898

4.043448

1.757625

0.25

0.072425

200.6794

6.065173

4.180376

1.744029

0.25

0.079237

136.0718

6.270564

4.376373

1.812709

0.25

0.077191

47.29270

6.56456

4.558736

1.899074

0.25

0.086745

32.69729

6.838106

Lake Superior

(303 pts)

4.615184

1.925705

0.25

0.087063

0.273995

6.922818

Table 2.c Shewchuk Triangle with minimum 20 angles, tri-to-quad meshing worst

metrics

15

An initial glance yields some interesting observations. Despite the glaring

disadvantage of the tri-to-quad algorithm, the quad meshes created by it

have much fewer faces than those created by Atalay et al.s direct quad mesh

generation algorithm. While running Triangle with a bounded minimum

angle gives us quad meshes with more faces, they still have significantly

fewer faces than those created by Atalay et al.s algorithm.

The change in average metric over quantity of points does not seem to be

significant; that is, more random points in a set does not have a significant

impact on the average metrics, except for the Jacobian determinant. However, knowing the way the Jacobian determinant is calculated (the Jacobian

determinant has the coefficient of aspect ratio times the square of the midlength), this can be attributed to the smaller elements in quad meshes with

more faces. This is supported by the fact that the Lake Superior input data

yields a much smaller Jacobian determinant, no matter the algorithm. See

Figure 6.

16

I initially thought there would be a significant difference between randomly generated point set input and a polygonal point set, but plotting

modified Jacobian determinant against input size (Figure ??) yields almost

no difference between randomly generated and polygonal point set input, at

least for Shewchuks Triangle algorithm with angle guarantee and Atalay et

al.s quadtree algorithm.

Comparing the average aspect ratio of non-bounded and bounded minimum angles on Shewchuks Triangle shows a dramatic improvement from

the 3.5 to 5.5 range to a more manageable and consistent 1.6 to 1.7 range

(Figure 8). Meanwhile, Atalay et al.s quadtree algorithm generates aspect

ratio in the range between 1.18 to 1.2.

Curiously, the average taper in the x direction is consistently 0.25, bounded

minimum angle or not. Perhaps this is an artifact from the tri-to-quad algorithm. After examining the individual analysis, all the quads seem to have a

17

taper of -0.25 under the algorithm.

Looking at the worst metrics, taper in the x-direction exhibits a very

strange characteristic. While we know that the Shewchuk tri-to-quad mesh

contain only quads of taper -0.25, and so the identical worst taperx is no

surprise, taper for Atalay et al.s algorithm generate meshes with extremely

similar tapers. I can not offer any thoughts as to why this would be the case,

given that six of the input point sets are essentially randomly generated, and

so there would be no guarantee that a quad with a given taper would exist.

This may be worth further investigation.

It is interesting to see that the worst modified Jacobian determinant for

Atalay et al.s quad meshes are also very similar to each other. This can perhaps to attributed to the angle bounds that their algorithm guarantees. The

same effect is not seen in Shewchuks Triangle with bounded angles, possibly

because while the original triangle mesh has angle guarantees, the tri-to-quad

conversion may introduce extreme angles. This can be seen in Shewchuks

18

dramatically for bigger input sets.

Evaluation

bounded angles gives the worst meshes, followed by Shewchuks Triangle

with bounded angles, and followed by the quadtree direct meshing algorithm.

While the modified determinant is indicative of four shape parameters (aspect

ratio, skew, taperx and tapery ), Robinsons method of calculating aspect ratio

seems to be sufficient for general mesh quality assessment. As we can see

in Figure 9, modified Jacobian determinant correlates extremely highly with

aspect ratio. This would indicate that for the input set we have analyzed,

modified Jacobian determinant is as good as a mesh quality measure as

Robinsons aspect ratio.

19

more effective in determining its quality. The determinant is affected by all

four shape parameters, and so is the ideal candidate should algorithms need

to maximize for a certain quality metric.

However, there are limitations to the Jacobian determinant. As Robinson

states, a quadrilateral has two sets of shape parameters depending on which

of the oblique axes is taken as the local x-axis, although the skew parameter is

the same in each case [8]. This means that the same quad, given a different

ordering of points, could give one of two metrics. See Figure 10.

Conclusion

implementation of the analysis to be run on quad meshes in .OFF format.

The modified Jacobian determinant, given in this paper, is a valid measure

of the quality of a quad mesh, although it should be noted that for mesh

analysis, Robinsons method of measuring aspect ratio works similarly as

an indicator of quality. Further research could be conducted by analyzing

other quad mesh generation programs. Since the source code for the analysis

program is given below, the only impediment to analyzing other quad mesh

algorithms would be the acquisition of executable implementation of the

algorithms, and the necessary file type conversion, as .OFF is one of many

mesh formats available.

The code for the analysis program and input data sets is available at

https://github.com/plu97/analyzeOffFile.

References

[1] Atalay F. B., Ramaswami S. and Xu D. (2012) Quadrilateral Meshes

with Provable Angle Bounds, Engineering with Computers 28, Issue 1,

pp 31-56

[2] Bern M., Eppstein D., Gilbert J. (1994) Provably Good Mesh Generation

Journal of Computer and System Sciences 48, Issue 1, pp 384-409

20

[3] Bommes D., Levy B., Pietroni N., Puppo E., Silva C., Tarini M., Zorin

D. (2013) Quad-mesh Generation and Processing: A Survey, Computer

Graphics Forum 32, Issue 6, pp 51-76

[4] Devadoss S. L. and ORourke J. (2011) Discrete and Computational Geometry

[5] Eppstein D. (2001) Global Optimization of Mesh Quality, from http:

//www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pubs/Epp-IMR-01.pdf [Accessed Dec.

19 2014]

[6] Eppstein D., Goodrich M. T., Sun J. Z. (2005) The Skip Quadtree:

A Simple Dynamic Data Structure for Multidimensional Data, from

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pubs/EppGooSun-SoCG-05.pdf

[Accessed Apr. 19 2015]

[7] Remacle, J.-F., Lambrechts, J., Seny, B., Marchandise, E., Johnen, A.

and Geuzainet, C. (2012) Blossom-Quad: A non-uniform quadrilateral

mesh generator using a minimum-cost perfect-matching algorithm. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 89, Issue 9,

pp 1102-1119

[8] Robinson J. (1987) CRE Method of Element Testing and the Jacobian

Shape Parameters, Engineering Computations 4, Issue 2, pp 113-118

[9] Robinson J. (1988) Understanding Finite Element Stress Analysis

[10] Shewchuk J. R. (1996) Triangle: Engineering a 2D Quality Mesh Generator and Delaunay Triangulator, Applied Computational Geometry Towards Geometric Engineering, pp 203-222

[11] Tarini M., Pietroni N., Cignoni P., Panozzo D. and Puppo E. (2010)

Practical Quad Mesh Simplification, Computer Graphics Forum 29, Number 2, pp 407-418

21

(a) A quad, with aspect ratio = 1.2, mod. Jacobian determinant = 1.6733

(b) The same quad, rotated 90 to the right. Aspect ratio = 1.5, mod. Jacobian

determinant = 2.0

22

- Finite Element Analysis Of Composite Element For FRP Reinforced Concrete Slab By Using ANSYSHochgeladen vonAnonymous vQrJlEN
- Finite Element Method and Computational Structural Dynamics by Shrikhande, ManishHochgeladen vonPHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
- Explanation Plate StaadHochgeladen vonMarius Rizea
- Practice Makes Perfect 5 Transformations)Hochgeladen vondikwanz
- fem6 29-10-2015Hochgeladen vonVipin Tyagi
- SURVEY OF LOW AND HIGH FREQUENCY METHODS FOR ANTENNA FIELD PROBLEMSHochgeladen vonijsret
- 250Hochgeladen vonChhabilal Adhikari
- 100907 EMI Future Security Tunnel Structure Subjected to ExplosionsHochgeladen vonMohammad Siami
- Pro m TutorialHochgeladen vonmudhayak
- William R. Bauer, Russell A. Lund and James H. White- Twist and writhe of a DNA loop containing intrinsic bendsHochgeladen vonDopame
- Jcerda Notes FE0Hochgeladen vonMohammad Rizwan Malik
- 3D_CADHochgeladen vonGowdhaman Elangovan
- 07 MeshHochgeladen vongunjandpatel05
- Teaching PortfolioHochgeladen vonSreeram Reddy Gundeti
- Deformation Vibration 1-8Hochgeladen vonJuancho Villa Mitre Locura
- Comparison Ejsr29415Hochgeladen vonSantiago Urgiles
- FEA QP Last 8 SemestersHochgeladen vonvsanthanam
- OutHochgeladen vonSuriaminHuang
- IMO GeometryHochgeladen vonErtha Varon
- FRANC3D V7 Training - Part 4 - Crack InsertHochgeladen vonsanthoshnl
- Ansys Icem Cfd Tutorial ManualHochgeladen vonJatin Khurana
- ANSYS+ICEM+CFD+Tutorial+Manual_180Hochgeladen vonTayfunw
- FE Analysis of hollow propeller shaftHochgeladen vonJeba Christo
- AGeneralApproachtotheLargeDeflectionProblemsofSpatialFlexibleRodsUsingPrincipalAxesDecompositionofComplianceMatricesHochgeladen vonAlejandro Gaston
- IJEIT1412201308_27.pdfHochgeladen vonlazem.360
- Lecture 2....Hochgeladen vonGooftilaaAniJiraachuunkooYesusiin
- 1742-6596_181_1_012038Hochgeladen vonThilli Kani
- 978-1-58503-542-7-1Hochgeladen vonrajan
- RemapHochgeladen vonvttrlc
- Mesh Edit AutocadHochgeladen vonmargamkiran20033

- polygonsHochgeladen vonapi-242739728
- Lesson Planning PolygonsHochgeladen vonJonathan Robinson
- Recovered_PDF_12.pdfHochgeladen vonZee Chi
- docdownloader.com_petrel1structuralmodelingpdf.pdfHochgeladen vonRiaz Ali
- Math in ProgrammingHochgeladen vonLeon Mills
- PolygonHochgeladen vonTimoy Cajes
- 195825392 Textbook Geometry 00 Went RichHochgeladen vonPintohedfang
- Computer Graphics Questions and answersHochgeladen vonAneeshia Sasidharan
- ExperimenterHochgeladen vonZah Uzziel
- Hcored ow to Use Corel DrawHochgeladen vonBorislav Vulić
- ADIP PPTHochgeladen vonBindu Yadav
- 8thStd_MathsGeometryHochgeladen vonkavithaofsuresh
- Solid MensurationHochgeladen vonBenePicar
- 41294365-TSKEP1313-tangramHochgeladen vonasf
- FME Workbench Transformers Quick-Reference BookletHochgeladen vonnetahedberg
- Logo Programming Book PreviewHochgeladen vonsandyg31794
- TDW58.Tut Model GrbHochgeladen vonfunctio1
- Cinema 4D - How to Deform Text to a Spline Shape in Cinema 4DHochgeladen vonShuja
- 5. Angles, Bearings and AzimuthHochgeladen vonMarc Dared Cagaoan
- artifact 1Hochgeladen vonapi-417089449
- PPT Presentation on Math Solid MHochgeladen vonThea Marie Santarin
- Beginners Guide to BlenderHochgeladen vonChaitali Dey Dey
- AutoCAD1Hochgeladen vonFarah Rasheed
- Topology - Poles and LoopsHochgeladen vonGraystonehill
- Rhino 4.0 User's GuideHochgeladen vonFoo
- Chapter 06 State Management and Drawing Geometric Objects.pdfHochgeladen vonprinceji
- Polygon FillHochgeladen vonRathindra Nath Dutta
- nbsscientificpaper468vol18p737_a2b-inductance coil polygonal.pdfHochgeladen vonOth J
- Fault_Horizon InterpretationHochgeladen vonFatah Ramdhan
- Math Unit 7Hochgeladen vonAnonymous mfeZVZGDo

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.