for choice of direction.
3 Compute b’s tangent tb(xi). In a small neighborhood of given size around zi, compute tangents to c. Choose the one with minimum angle to tb(xi), the corresponding point is ŷi.
4 Project ŷi onto the plane spanned by li-1 and xi to get yi.
5 The line connecting xi and yi is coplanar with li-1, they intersect in a point ai (or they are parallel).
6 Form a conical surface with the curve segment of b from xi-1 to xi and the apex ai (or a cylindrical surface)
7 The line through xi and yi is the next li. Or, if you want to get closer to t, take a point between yi and ŷi within a given threshold and thus get the next li.
8 Repeat steps 2 to 7 until you reach the end of b.
For a family of curves number them consecutively and use the even numbers as base curves and the odd numbers as target curves, see Fig. 7. Then, every strip has a neighbor with whom it shares a base curve and one neighbor sharing a target curve. Intersect the latter two strips to get a new curve, approximating the target curve and lying on both adjacent strips. In most cases, this intersection curve will be very ragged and thus unaesthetic. We therefore trim the strips with an auxiliary surface through the target curve, which can be a bisector of the strips or a general cone through the target curve.
Fig. 7 (left) If the intersection of the strip between c0 and c1 and the strip between c1 and c2 is too ragged, an auxiliary surface through the target curve c1 is constructed. (right) The resulting conical panels and the new curve close to the target curve c1.
4.3Choice of ruling direction
For most algorithms approximating an input surface by a developable surface (Rose et al 2007) there is no explicit choice of ruling direction, which makes no difference in computer graphics, but if the panels are to be built, the ruling directions determine two of the panels’ edges, thus having significant impact on the overall look.
As mentioned in sec. 3.2, the conjugate direction (assuming an underlying surface S) is a good choice for the ruling but need not intersect the other curve. We mimic the construction of the tangent developable surface locally by fitting a cone, whose second ruling (the first is already given by the previous iteration) should ideally intersect b in a right angle (see the choice of zi in the step 1 of the algorithm). Note that this can only be the case if b were a principal curvature line of S, see (Pottmann et al 2007).
It follows that the algorithm gives the most pleasing results if the chosen family of input curves is part of a conjugate network of curves, such as a family of principal curvature lines, as can be expected.
Fig. 8 Design study Hotel Entrance with conical glass panels, where the curve network can be divided such that the base curves are ridges and the target curves valleys. This design could also be built with planar panels, but then the panels would not yield smooth reflection lines.
5 Examples
We present examples of architectural projects that are yet to be realized. The examples are either based on our own architectural designs, like Fig. 8, or actual projects that have not yet seen completion like in Fig. 9. They were constructed following the algorithm of sec. 4.2 with these predefined values:
| Fig. 8 | Fig. 9 | |
| Average Panel Size (in mm) | 2.00 x 1000 | 1.00 x 1000 |
| Number of Subdivisions | 2. | 1. |
| Max. Tangent Deviation | 3. | 1. |
| Max. Panel Deviation | 0 | 2. |
Table 1 Parameters of the examples
In Tab.1 average panel size and all other measures are in millimeters. The number of subdivisions refers to step 1 of the algorithm and sets the number of panels each strip has. The maximum tangent deviation refers to the size of the neighborhood in step 2, in which one looks for parallel tangents. The maximum panel deviation is the threshold of step 6 and defines how far two consecutive panels can be apart; this number will be lower in practice because of cold bending.
Fig. 8 shows an architectural study where the curve network can be divided such that the base curves are ridges and the target curves valleys.
The algorithm works very well here because neighboring strips meet almost at a right angle, which makes intersecting them easier. Note that this design could also be built with planar panels, but then appearance of the reflection lines would be completely different.
The last example in Fig. 9 is an actual project, where the new free-form design serves as an extension to a historical building. Note that the curve network does not directly follow the main curvature lines and yet the algorithm gives good results. The main difference to the example in Fig. 8 lies in the fact that two adjacent strips meet in a very obtuse angle, thus trimming with an auxiliary surface (see the last paragraph of sec. 4.2) is necessary.
Fig. 9 This architectural design is a modern extension of a historical building. All glass elements are conical panels, aligned with the surface’s border.
6 Summary and Future Research
In this work we presented a new way for approximating curves on a surface with developable strips, consisting of conical and cylindrical panels. This can also be seen as a new design tool with panels that are ready to planarize and yet allow for great freedom in the design. The differences from developable strips to planar panels like quadrilaterals and triangles are its advantageous reflection lines and an overall smooth look. In contrast to double curved panels, they can be built at reduced cost.
An easy-to-use algorithm is presented, that can be directly implemented into any CAD system without the help of external libraries or optimization frameworks.
References
Alliez, P.; Cohen-Steiner, Dl; Devillers, O.; L’Evy, B.; Desbrun, M., 2003: Anisotropic Polygonal Remeshing. ACM Trans. Graphics 22 (3), pp. 485–493.
Aumann, G., 2004: Degree Elevation and Developable Bézier Surfaces. Comp. Aided Geom. Design 21, pp. 661–670.
Bommes, D.; Zimmer, H.; Kobbelt, L., 2009: Mixed-Integer Quadrangulation. ACM Trans. Graphics 28, 3 (2009), # 77, pp. 1–10.
Chu, C.H.; Séquin, C., 2002: Developable Bèzier Patches: Properties and Design. Computer-Aided Design 34, pp. 511–528.
Do Carmo, M.P., 1976. Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Frey, W., Modeling Buckled Developable Surfaces by Triangulation. CAD 36(4), pp. 299–313.
Glaeser, G.; Gruber, F., 2007. Developable Surfaces in Contemporary Architecture. J. of Math. And the Arts 1, pp. 1–15.
Julius, D.; Kraevoy, V.; Sheffer, A., 2005: Dcharts: Quasi-Developable Mesh Segmentation. Computer Graphics Forum (Proc. Eurographics) 24, 3, pp. 581–590.
Kahlert, J.; Olson, M.; Zhang, H., 2011: Width-Bounded Geodesic Strips for Surface Tiling, The Visual Computer, Vol. 27/1, pp. 45-56.
Kruppa, E., 1957: Analytische und konstruktive Differentialgeometrie. Wien: Springer.
Liu, Y.; Pottmann, H.; Wallner, J.; Yang, Y.-L.; Wang, W., 2006. Geometric Modeling with Conical Meshes and Developable Surfaces. ACM Transactions on Graphics 25, 3, pp. 681–689.
Pottmann,