Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
PurposeMesh Parameterization is central to reverse engineering, tool path planning, etc. This work synthesizes parameterizations with un-constrained borders, overall minimum angle plus area distortion. This study aims to present an assessment of the sensitivity of the minimized distortion with respect to weighed area and angle distortions.Design/methodology/approachA Mesh Parameterization which does not constrain borders is implemented by performing: isometry maps for each triangle to the plane Z = 0; an affine transform within the plane Z = 0 to glue the triangles back together; and a Levenberg–Marquardt minimization algorithm of a nonlinear F penalty function that modifies the parameters of the first two transformations to discourage triangle flips, angle or area distortions. F is a convex weighed combination of area distortion (weight: α with 0 ≤ α ≤ 1) and angle distortion (weight: 1 − α).FindingsThe present study parameterization algorithm has linear complexity [𝒪(n), n = number of mesh vertices]. The sensitivity analysis permits a fine-tuning of the weight parameter which achieves overall bijective parameterizations in the studied cases. No theoretical guarantee is given in this manuscript for the bijectivity. This algorithm has equal or superior performance compared with the ABF, LSCM and ARAP algorithms for the Ball, Cow and Gargoyle data sets. Additional correct results of this algorithm alone are presented for the Foot, Fandisk and Sliced-Glove data sets.Originality/valueThe devised free boundary nonlinear Mesh Parameterization method does not require a valid initial parameterization and produces locally bijective parameterizations in all of our tests. A formal sensitivity analysis shows that the resulting parameterization is more stable, i.e. the UV mapping changes very little when the algorithm tries to preserve angles than when it tries to preserve areas. The algorithm presented in this study belongs to the class that parameterizes meshes with holes. This study presents the results of a complexity analysis comparing the present study algorithm with 12 competing ones.
Engineering Computations – Emerald Publishing
Published: Aug 7, 2017
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.