skip to main content
10.1145/545261.545266acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesscaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Fast penetration depth computation for physically-based animation

Published:21 July 2002Publication History

ABSTRACT

We present a novel and fast algorithm to compute penetration depth (PD) between two polyhedral models for physically-based animation. Given two overlapping polyhedra, it computes the minimal translation distance to separate them using a combination of object-space and image-space techniques. The algorithm computes pairwise Minkowski sums of decomposed convex pieces and performs a closest point query using rasterization hardware. It uses bounding volume hierarchies, object-space and image-space culling algorithms to further accelerate the computation and refines the estimated PD in a hierarchical manner. We demonstrate its application to contact response computation and a time-stepping method for dynamic simulation.

References

  1. AGARWAL, P., GUIBAS, L. J., HAR-PELED, S., RABINOVITCH, A., AND SHARIR, M. 2000. Penetration depth of two convex polytopes in 3D. Nordic J. Computing 7, 227-240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. BARAFF, D. 1992. Dynamic simulation of non-penetrating rigid body simulation. PhD thesis, Cornell University. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. BARAFF, D. 1994. Fast contact force computation for nonpenetrating rigid bodies. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH '94, A. Glassner, Ed., ACM SIGGRAPH, 23-34. ISBN 0-89791-667-0. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. BARBER, B., DOBKIN, D., AND HUHDANPAA, H. 1993. The quickhull algorithm for convex hull. Tech. Rep. GCG53, The Geometry Center, MN.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. BERGEN, G. 2001. Proximity queries and penetration depth computation on 3D game objects. Game Developers Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. CAMERON, S., AND CULLEY, R. K. 1986. Determining the minimum translational distance between two convex polyhedra. Proceedings of International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 591-596.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. CAMERON, S. 1997. Enhancing GJK: Computing minimum and penetration distance between convex polyhedra. Proceedings of International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 3112-3117.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. CHAZELLE, B., DOBKIN, D., SHOURABOURA, N., AND TAL, A. 1997. Strategies for polyhedral surface decomposition: An experimental study. Comput. Geom. Theory Appl. 7, 327-342. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. DOBKIN, D., HERSHBERGER, J., KIRKPATRICK, D., AND SURI, S. 1993. Computing the intersection-depth of polyhedra. Algorithmica 9, 518-533.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. EHMANN, S., AND LIN, M. C. 2001. Accurate and fast proximity queries between polyhedra using convex surface decomposition. Computer Graphics Forum (Proc. of Eurographics'2001) 20, 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. EPSTEIN, D., JANSEN, F., AND ROSSIGNAC, J. 1989. Z-buffering rendering from CSG: The trickle algorithm. Tech. rep., IBM Research Report RC15182.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. FISHER, S., AND LIN, M. C. 2001. Deformed distance fields for simulation of non-penetrating flexible bodies. Proc. of EG Workshop on Computer Animation and Simulation. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. GILBERT, E. G., JOHNSON, D. W., AND KEERTHI, S. S. 1988. A fast procedure for computing the distance between objects in three-dimensional space. IEEE J. Robotics and Automation vol RA-4, 193-203.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. GOLDFEATHER, J., HULTQUIST, J. P. M., AND FUCHS, H. 1986. Fast constructive-solid geometry display in the Pixel-Powers graphics system. In Proc. of ACM SIGGRAPH, vol. 20, 107-116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. GOTTSCHALK, S., LIN, M., AND MANOCHA, D. 1996. OBB-Tree: A hierarchical structure for rapid interference detection. In Proc. of ACM Siggraph'96, 171-180. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. GREGORY, A., MASCARENHAS, A., EHMANN, S., LIN, M. C., AND MANOCHA, D. 2000. 6-DOF haptic display of polygonal models. Proc. of IEEE Visualization Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. GUIBAS, L., AND SEIDEL, R. 1987. Computing convolutions by reciprocal search. Discrete Comput. Geom 2, 175-193.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. HOFF, K., CULVER, T., KEYSER, J., LIN, M., AND MANOCHA, D. 1999. Fast computation of generalized Voronoi diagrams using graphics hardware. Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH, 277-286. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. HOFF, K., ZAFERAKIS, A., LIN, M., AND MANOCHA, D. 2001. Fast and simple geometric proximity queries using graphics hardware. Proc. of ACM Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. HUBBARD, P. M. 1995. Collision detection for interactive graphics applications. IEEE Trans. Visualization and Computer Graphics 1, 3 (Sept.), 218-230. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. KAUL, A., AND ROSSIGNAC, J. 1992. Solid-interpolating deformations: construction and animation of pips. Computer and Graphics 16, 107-116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. KIM, Y. J., LIN, M. C., AND MANOCHA, D. 2002. DEEP: Dual-space Expansion for Estimating Penetration depth between convex polytopes. In IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. KIM, Y. J., OTADUY, M. A., LIN, M. C., AND MANOCHA, D. 2002. Fast penetration depth computation using rasterization hardware and hierarchical refinement. Tech. rep. TR02-014, UNC-Chapel Hill.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. KLOSOWSKI, J., HELD, M., MITCHELL, J. S. B., ZIKAN, K., AND SOWIZRAL, H. 1998. Efficient collision detection using bounding volume hierarchies of k-DOPs. IEEE Trans. Visualizat. Comput. Graph. 4, 1, 21-36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. LIN, M., AND CANNY, J. F. 1991. Efficient algorithms for incremental distance computation. In IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1008-1014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. MCKENNA, M., AND ZELTZER, D. 1990. Dynamic simulation of autonomous legged locomotion. In Computer Graphics (SIGGRAPH '90 Proceedings), F. Baskett, Ed., vol. 24, 29-38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. MCNEELY, W., PUTERBAUGH, K., AND TROY, J. 1999. Six degree-of-freedom haptic rendering using voxel sampling. Proc. of ACM SIGGRAPH, 401-408. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. MIRTICH, B., AND CANNY, J. 1995. Impulse-based simulation of rigid bodies. In Proc. of ACM Interactive 3D Graphics. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. MIRTICH, B. 1998. V-Clip: Fast and robust polyhedral collision detection. ACM Transactions on Graphics 17, 3 (July), 177-208. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. MIRTICH, B. 2000. Timewarp rigid body simulation. Proc. of ACM SIGGRAPH. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. MOORE, M., AND WILHELMS, J. 1988. Collision detection and response for computer animation. In Computer Graphics (SIGGRAPH '88 Proceedings), J. Dill, Ed., vol. 22, 289-298. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. ONG, C. J., AND GILBERT, E. 1996. Growth distances: New measures for object separation and penetration. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 12, 6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. ROSSIGNAC, J., MEGAHED, A., AND SCHNEIDER, B.-O. 1992. Interactive inspection of solids: Cross-sections and interferences. In Computer Graphics (SIGGRAPH '92 Proceedings), E. E. Catmull, Ed., vol. 26, 353-360. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. STEWART, D. E., AND TRINKLE, J. C. 1996. An implicit time-stepping scheme for rigid body dynamics with inelastic collisions and Coulomb friction. International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering 39, 2673-2691.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. THEOHARIS, T., PAPAIANNOU, G., AND KARABASSI, E. 2001. The magic of the Z-buffer: A survey. Proc. of 9th International Conference on Computer Graphics, Visualization and Computer Vision, WSCG.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. WIEGAND, T. F. 1996. Interactive rendering of CSG models. Computer Graphics Forum 15, 4, 249-261.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. WITKIN, A., AND BARAFF, D. 1997. Physically Based Modeling: Principles and Practice. ACM Press. Course Notes of ACM SIGGRAPH.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Fast penetration depth computation for physically-based animation

          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
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            SCA '02: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics symposium on Computer animation
            July 2002
            203 pages
            ISBN:1581135734
            DOI:10.1145/545261

            Copyright © 2002 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: 21 July 2002

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • Article

            Acceptance Rates

            SCA '02 Paper Acceptance Rate22of53submissions,42%Overall Acceptance Rate183of487submissions,38%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader