Building Construction Sets by Tiling Grammar Simplification

This paper poses the problem of fabricating physical construction sets from example geometry: A construction set provides a small number of different types of building blocks from which the example model as well as many similar variants can be reassembled. This process is formalized by tiling grammars. Our core contribution is an approach for simplifying tiling grammars such that we obtain physically manufacturable building blocks of controllable granularity while retaining variability, i.e., the ability to construct many different, related shapes. Simplification is performed by sequences of two types of elementary Operations: non‐local joint edge collapses in the tile graphs reduce the granularity of the decomposition and approximate replacement Operations reduce redundancy. We evaluate our method on abstract graph grammars in addition to computing several physical construction sets, which are manufactured using a commodity 3D printer.

[1]  Wilmot Li,et al.  Illustrating how mechanical assemblies work , 2010, CACM.

[2]  Hans-Peter Seidel,et al.  Microtiles: Extracting Building Blocks from Correspondences , 2012, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[3]  Wilmot Li,et al.  Illustrating how mechanical assemblies work , 2010, SIGGRAPH 2010.

[4]  D. Cohen-Or,et al.  K-set tilable surfaces , 2010, ACM Trans. Graph..

[5]  Kurt Mehlhorn,et al.  Effective Computational Geometry for Curves and Surfaces , 2005 .

[6]  Radomír Mech,et al.  Learning design patterns with bayesian grammar induction , 2012, UIST.

[7]  H. Seidel,et al.  A connection between partial symmetry and inverse procedural modeling , 2010, SIGGRAPH 2010.

[8]  Jianwei Guo,et al.  Illustrating the disassembly of 3D models , 2013, Comput. Graph..

[9]  Chi-Wing Fu,et al.  Making burr puzzles from 3D models , 2011, ACM Trans. Graph..

[10]  Martin Kilian,et al.  Paneling architectural freeform surfaces , 2010, ACM Trans. Graph..

[11]  G Arndt,et al.  A review of current research on disassembly sequence generation and computer aided design for disassembly , 2003 .

[12]  Chi-Wing Fu,et al.  K-set tilable surfaces , 2010, SIGGRAPH 2010.

[13]  Hans-Peter Seidel,et al.  Exploring Shape Variations by 3D‐Model Decomposition and Part‐based Recombination , 2012, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[14]  Daniel G. Aliaga,et al.  Inverse Procedural Modeling by Automatic Generation of L‐systems , 2010, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[15]  Nancy Argüelles,et al.  Author ' s , 2008 .

[16]  Geoffrey Boothroyd.  Design for Manufacture and Assembly: The Boothroyd-Dewhurst Experience , 1996 .

[17]  Rajit Gadh,et al.  Geometric abstractions to support disassembly analysis , 1999 .

[18]  Daniel Cohen-Or,et al.  Smart Variations: Functional Substructures for Part Compatibility , 2013, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[19]  Peng Song,et al.  Recursive interlocking puzzles , 2012, ACM Trans. Graph..

[20]  Scott Schaefer,et al.  Triangle surfaces with discrete equivalence classes , 2010, ACM Trans. Graph..

[21]  Jun Li,et al.  Symmetry Hierarchy of Man‐Made Objects , 2011, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[22]  Niloy J. Mitra,et al.  Symmetry in 3D Geometry: Extraction and Applications , 2013, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[23]  Leonidas J. Guibas,et al.  Shape segmentation using local slippage analysis , 2004, SGP '04.

[24]  Robert L. Berger.  The undecidability of the domino problem , 1966 .

[25]  Niloy J. Mitra,et al.  Replaceable Substructures for Efficient Part‐Based Modeling , 2015, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[26]  Dong-Ming Yan,et al.  Inverse procedural modeling of facade layouts , 2013, ACM Trans. Graph..

[27]  Javor Kalojanov.  Efficient r-symmetry detection for triangle meshes , 2015 .

[28]  Willibald A. Günthner,et al.  Evaluation of an Augmented Reality Supported Picking System Under Practical Conditions , 2010, Comput. Graph. Forum.