Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Representation of heterogeneous material properties in the Core Product Model

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Engineering with Computers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Core Product Model (CPM) was developed at National Institute of Standards as a high level abstraction for representing product related information, to support data exchange, in a distributive and a collaborative environment. In this paper, we extend the CPM to components with continuously varying material properties. Such components are becoming increasing important and popular due to progress in design, analysis and manufacturing techniques. The key enabling concept for modeling continuously varying material properties is that of distance fields associated with a set of material features, where values and rates of material properties are specified. Material fields, representing distribution of material properties within a component, are usually expressed as functions of distances to material features, and are controlled with a variety of differential, integral or algebraic constraints. Our formulation is independent of any particular platform or representation, and applies to most proposed techniques for representing continuously varying material properties. The proposed model is described using Unified Modeling Language and is illustrated through a number of specific examples.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bendsoe M, Kikuchi N (1988) Generating optimal topologies in structural design using homogenization method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 71:197–224

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Ghosh A, Miyamoto Y, Reimanis I (1997) Functionally graded materials: manufacture, properties and applications. Ceram Trans 76:1–192

    Google Scholar 

  3. Suresh S, Mortensen A (1997) Fundamentals of functinally graded materials. The University Press, UK

    Google Scholar 

  4. Miyamoto Y, Kaysser WA, Rabin BH (eds) (1999) Functionally graded materials: design, processing and applications. Kluwer, Boston

  5. Siu YK, Tan ST (2002) Source-based heterogeneous solid modeling. Comput Aided Des 34:41–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Booch G, Rumbaugh J, Jacobson I (1999) The unified modeling language user guide. Addison–Wesley, Massachusetts

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland (1994) ISO 10303-1:1994, Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 1: Overview and fundamental principles

  8. Owen J (1997) STEP: an introduction. Information Geometer, Wichster

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fenves S, Sriram R, Subrahmanian E, Rachuri S (2005) Product information exchange: practices and standards. Trans ASME J Comput Inf Sci Eng 5(3):238–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fenves SJ (2001) A Core Product Model for representing design information, internal report NISTIR 6736. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD

    Google Scholar 

  11. Pratt MJ (2000) Modelling of material property variation for layered manufacturing. In: Mathematics of surfaces IX. Cambridge, UK

  12. Pratt MJ, Bhatt AD, Dutta D, Lyons KW, Patil L, Sriram RD (2002) Progress towards an international standard for data transfer in rapid prototyping and layered manufacturing. Comput Aided Des 34(1):1111–1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Patil L, Dutta D, Bhatt AD, Jurrens KK, Lyons KW, Pratt MJ, Sriram RD (2000) Representation of heterogeneous objects in ISO 10303. In: ASME international mechanical engineering congress and exposition, Orlando, FL

  14. Cho W, Sachs EM, Patrikalakis NM, Cima M, Liu H, Serdy J, Stratton CC (2002) Local composition control in solid freeform fabrication, In: Proceedings of the 2002 NSF design, service and manufacturing grantees and research conference, San Juan, Puerto Rico

  15. Liu H, Cho W, Jackson TR, Patrikalakis NM, Sachs EM (2000) Algorithms for design and interrogation of functionally gradient material objects, In: Proceedings of ASME 2000 IDETC/CIE 2000 ASME design automation conference, Baltimore, MD

  16. Jackson TR (2000) Analysis of functionally graded material object representation methods, Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Ocean Engineering Department

  17. Biswas A, Shapiro V, Tsukanov I (2004) Heterogeneous material modeling with distance fields. Comput Aided Geom Des 22(3):215–242

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Holt JB, Koizumi M, Hirai T, Munir ZA (eds) (1993) Ceramic transactions, vol 34. The American Ceramic Society, Westerville, Ohio

  19. Chandru V, Manohar S, Prakash C (1995) Voxel-based modeling for layered manufacturing. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 27:42–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pegna J, Safi A (1998) CAD modeling of multi-model structures for freeform fabrication. In: Proceedings of the 1998 solid freeform fabrication symposium, Austin, TX

  21. Qian X, Dutta D (2001) Physics based B-Spline heterogeneous object modeling. In: ASME design engineering technical conference, Pittsburgh

  22. Kumar V, Dutta D (1998) An approach to modeling and representation of heterogeneous objects. ASME J Mech Des 120:659–667

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kumar V, Burns D, Dutta D, Hoffmann C (1999) A framework for object modeling. Comput Aided Des 31:541–556

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Shapiro V (2002) Solid modeling. In: Farin G, JHoschek, Kim MS (eds) Handbook of computer aided geometric design. Elsevier, Amsterdam

  25. Requicha AAG (1980) Representations for rigid solids: theory, methods, and systems. ACM Computing Surveys 12:437–464

  26. Rvachev VL, Sheiko TI, Shapiro V, Tsukanov I (2000) On completeness of RFM solution structures. Comput Mech 25:305–316

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Rvachev VL, Sheiko TI, Shapiro V, Tsukanov I (2001) Transfinite interpolation over implicitly defined sets. Comput Aided Geom Des 18:195–220

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Lancaster P, Salkauskas K (1986) Curve and surface fitting: an introduction, Academic, New York

  29. Hoscheck J, Lasser D (1993) Fudamentals of computer aided geometric design, ISBN 1-56881-007-5, A. K. Peters Ltd, Natick, MA, USA, pp 371–501

  30. Rvachev VL, Sheiko TI, Shapiro V, Tsukanov I (1999) On completeness of RFM solution structure. Comput Mech J Meshf Methods 25:305–316

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kolmogorov AN, Fomin SV (1975) Introductory real analysis, Dover Publication Inc, New York

  32. Biswas A, Shapiro V (2004) Approximate distance fields with non-vanishing gradients. Graph Models 66(3):133–159

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Ricci A (1973) A constructive geometry for computer graphics. Comput J 16(2):157–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Shapiro V (1994) Real functions for representation of rigid solids. Comput Aided Geom Des 11(2):153–175

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Shapiro V, Tsukanov I (1999) Implicit functions with guaranteed differential properties, In: Proceedings of fifth ACM symposium on solid modeling and applications, Ann Arbor, MI

  36. Rvachev VL (1982) Theory of R-functions and some applications, Naukova Dumka (in Russian)

  37. Rockwood AP, Owen JC (1987) Blending surfaces in solid modeling. In: Farin GE (ed) Geometric modeling: algorithms and new trends. SIAM, Philadelphia, pp 367–383

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rockwood AP (1989) The displacement method for implicit blending surfaces in solid models. ACM Trans Graph (TOG) 8(4):279–297

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Raviv A, Elber G (1999) Three dimensional freeform sculpting via zero sets of scalar trivariate functions. In: Proceedings of the fifth ACM symposium on solid modeling and applications. ACM Press, New York, pp 246–257

  40. Esteve J, Brunet P, Vinacua A (2001) Multiresolution for algebraic curves and surfaces using wavelets. Comput Graph Forum 20(1):47–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Savchenko VV, Pasko AA, Okunev OG, Kunii TL (1995) Function representation of solids reconstructed from scattered surface points and contours. Comput Graph Forum 14(4):181–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Turk G, O’Brien JF (1999) Shape transformation using variational implicit functions, In: Proceedings of the 26th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques, ACM Press/Addison–Wesley Publishing Co, New York, NY, USA, pp 335–342

  43. Kumar GVVR, Srinivasan P, Holla VD, Shastry KG, Prakash BG (2003) Geodesic curve computations on surfaces. Comput Aided Geom Des 20(2):119–133

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  44. Ahuja N, Chuang JH (1997) Shape representation using generalized potential field model. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 19(2):169–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Bloomenthal J (1995) Bulge elimination in implicit surface blends. In: Implicit surfaces’95. Grenoble, France, pp 7–20

  46. Sherstyuk A (1999) Kernel functions in convolution surfaces: a comparative analysis. Vis Comput 15(4):171–182

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Koike Y (1992) Graded index materials and components. In: Hornak LA (ed) In polymers for lightwave and integrated optics. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York (special contribution to this book)

  48. Weiss L, Amon C, Finger S, Miller E, Romero D, Verdinelli I, Walker L, Campbell P (2005) Bayesian computer-aided experimental design and freeform fabrication of heterogeneous matrices for tissue engineering applications. Comput Aided Des 37(11):1127–1139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Tsukanov I, Shapiro V (2005) Meshfree Modeling and Analysis of Physical Fields in Heterogeneous Media. Adv Comput Math 23(1-2):95–124

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is supported in part by the National Science Foundation grants DMI-0323514 and DMI-0115133, and the National Institute of Standards (NIST) grant 60NANB2D0126. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. No approval or endorsement of any commercial product by the National Institute of Standards and Technology or by University of Wisconsin-Madison is intended or implied.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Spatial Automation Laboratory, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA

    Arpan Biswas & Vadim Shapiro

  2. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA

    Steve J. Fenves & Ram Sriram

Authors
  1. Arpan Biswas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steve J. Fenves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vadim Shapiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ram Sriram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vadim Shapiro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Biswas, A., Fenves, S.J., Shapiro, V. et al. Representation of heterogeneous material properties in the Core Product Model. Engineering with Computers 24, 43–58 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-007-0065-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-007-0065-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation