Fairing of surfaces with
optimization techniques
u s i n g FANGA c u r v e s a s t h e
qual ity criterion
Gunnar Liden and Stefan K E Westberg
Today, the surface-definition process is too time-
consuming. One of the few realistic ways of shortening the
time is to use optimization techniques. Research in this
area has been going on for many years, and the authors'
major task has been to find a mathematical function for
measuring surface quality.
The paper presents a new method, FANGA (Formela
ANGle Analysis), for the analysis of surface quality. The
method is usable both in surface analysis and surface
optimization.
The FANGA analysis function has been implemented in
the surface definition system NMG (Numerical Master
Geometry), and it is now used in the surface-definition
process.
A test function has been developed for surface
optimization.
The FANGAmethod is presented, and several examples
are given.
smoothing, optimization, lofting, surface modelling, surface quafity,
surface analysis
Aircraft and car designers and others who work with
complex surfaces know that the time spent on surface
definition can often be very great. For anyone not familiar
with surface definition, a CAD demonstration at a
graphical terminal in which a surface is designed and
displayed, often in pretty colours, may be very
misleading.
SAAB-SCANIA AB, Saab Military Aircraft, S-581 88 Link6ping,
Sweden
Paper received: 13 June 1991. Revised: 14 November 1992
volume 25 number 7 july 1993 0010-4485/93/070411-10 © 1993 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd
In real life, surfaces to be designed are restrained by
a number of geometry constraints which often make them
very complex. A surface must be fitted to surrounding
surfaces in a prescribed manner. Parts of a surface must
fulfil certain demands relating to curvature, like
developability etc.
To complicate matters further, the surface must have
a shape which the human eye considers to be smooth
and fair. This is the quality criterion used in both the
automotive and aircraft industries - - an aesthetic
criterion, which, at the same time, makes the resulting
surface easy to 'use' in CAD/CAMsystems and to
manufacture. A nicely shaped surface is convex, the
variation in curvature is smooth etc.
Roughly 20% of the time taken to create a complete
surface definition is spent on creating a preliminary
surface, while the remaining 80% is needed for small
adjustments of definition data carried out until the surface
is of an acceptable quality. To make surface definition
more efficient, it is obvious that this last phase must be
shortened.
In mathematical terms, this data-adjustment phase
may be regarded as an optimization problem, as follows.
Problem." Maximize F = surface quality (smoothness and
fairness) subject to geometry constraints due to
production, aerodynamics etc.
In this paper, a new method for the analysis of surface
quality called FANGA (Formela ANGle Analysis) is
presented. In the method, a set of planar curves is
generated that, for high-quality surfaces, are smooth.
The FANGA curves may be used both in surface analysis
and surface optimization.
The description of the analysis method is accompanied
by several examples taken from aircraft design, and the
optimization example is from the automotive industry.
411
G Liden and S K E Westberg

The work has been carried out at Saab Aircraft bPINE (U~
Division, which hereinafter is referred to as Saab. Li

CRITERIA FOR GOOD SURFACE

iit/ ~~/ TOl

L~
Finding a good and usable objective function is the same / /
process as studying different surface-analysis methods. / /
These methods may be divided into three groups, as // L3
Lq
follows.
/[03
• Position criteria." The normal way of checking a surface /
today is still with planar intersect curves. Intersects are
easy to interpret, and the shape of the curves often
indicates how the input data to the surface should be
1t111/
changed to improve the surface quality. It may,
however, be quite laborious to determine appropriate
intersection planes and the distance between these
J
planes. / /
/
• lst-order-derivative criteria." The analysis of reflection
lines falls into this category (see Figure 1). Smooth
reflection lines are a very good indicator of high surface
quality. However, the reflection lines are relatively Figure 2A. Conic-lofting surjace
[L: longitudinal-limit curves. TD: tangent-definition curves.]
difficult to compute, and they are of little help in the
surface-definition work, since they normally give no
hint of how the input data to the surface should be L1
modified.
• 2nd-order-derivative criteria: One example is the
Gaussian curvature presented in a coloured plot which
can be generated by many CAD/CAM systems. This plot
is very difficult to interpret geometrically, and is // _)_L2
normally of no help at all in the surface-definition /
work. /

The FANGA method introduced here is a l st-order type

of criterion. The FANGA curves can be regarded as types +-
of 2D reflection lines which are easy to compute. I /
Other work in this area can be found in References 1 5. /
/
/
FANGA CONCEPT /
The idea behind the FANGA curves is based on the /
conic-lofting modeller 6, which is the preferred and most /
widely used surface modeller in the aircraft industry. /
Examples of such modellers are Saab's old surface- -~z j
definition system Formela 7-9, C O N S U R F 10-12 in the /
/-
+/
/ f x Figure 2B. Definition of parameters defining section curve
x\~, [P-value - A/B.l
British Aerospace surface-definition system N M G , SURF2
in Catia, and SWANS from Pafec Ltd. In this paper, the
Y CONSURF method has been used.
A lofting modeller is a procedural type of surface
modeller. A procedure, i.e. an algorithm, uses a number
of longitudinal curves and scalar functions to define
sweeping crosssection curves. For a conic-lofting
modeller, these curves are conics.
The algorithm for the evaluation of a point U, V on
Figure 1. Reflection (silhouette) curve of surface viewed a conic-lofting type of surface may contain the following
at an angle of 45 ° to y axis steps (see Figures 2A and 2B):

412 computer-aided design

 Fairing of surfaces with optimization techniques using FANGAcurves as the quality criterion

• Step 1." Compute a point and derivatives for the given FORMELFI
U on the spine curve. The plane for the conic section
passes through the point, and the normal to the plane
is the tangent to the spine curve.
• Step 2: Make intersects with the longitudinal-limit
curves and tangent-definition curves, and compute
derivatives with respect to U (the intersecting spine
plane).
• Step 3: Compute a P value, i.e. the fullness of the
curve according to Figure 2B, and the derivatives of
P with respect to U.
• Step 4: Create a conic defined by two limit points,
two tangent-definition points, and a P value, and Z AXIS
compute the point coordinates for the given V value
and the tangent, i.e. the derivative with respect to V.
• Step 5: Compute the surface normal in this point using J
the above computed derivatives with respect to U (the
intersecting spine plane) and V. V5

Note that an explicit equation for the computation of FANGR

the point and derivatives only 'exists locally'.
The conic-lofting type of modeller has many
advantages, such as the following:
• The amount of input data is less compared with, for
instance, that for the polynomial type of surface, which
requires many points, tangents etc., and that is true
even for the definition of a fairly simple surface.
• The amount of output data which defines the surface
is small, since the surface is fully defined by the input
curves, scalar functions etc.
• The surface is automatically satisfactory in one
direction, i.e. the curvature distribution for the
crosssection conic curve is very good.
• The input longitudinal and/or crosssection curves for
the definition are easy and 'natural' to use.
In the Formela system, five angles (see Figure 3) were
used to check that tangent and point data generated by
the spine plane would result in a 1-branch conic. These
five angles are defined as the angles from a fixed vector
(in Formela, the z axis) to the endpoint tangent, to the
chord vector, and to two line vectors between the
endpoints and an arbitrary midpoint. The condition for
a 1-branch conic is that angles 1/1-1/5 are increasing or
decreasing.
The Formela angles can be, and have been, used at
Saab as a tool to determine the quality of an individual
multisegment conic-section curve. The natural generaliza-
tion to surface analysis would, of course, be to calculate
a set of Formela angle curves V~= Vi(s), i= 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
for each surface strip, where s, for instance, can be the
arc length of the spine curve. Many surfaces can be
analysed in this way, but there is a problem if the
longitudinal-limit curves, i.e. the strip boundaries, do not
run 'nicely'. The surface in Figure 4a, which is part of
an ellipsoid, is such an example. In this case, it would
not be obvious from the curves Vi(s) whether the surface
was perfect or not.
Our approach to make the Formela angles usable for
surface analysis also is to extrapolate each conic strip in
A1
Z AXIS
A5
Figure 3. Definition of Formela and FANGA angles
the surface to constant angles, and compute the Formela
angles for the extrapolated conic segments. This means
that it is the surface quality which is analysed, and not
the quality of the strip-boundary curves. In the
ellipsoid-strip example, the resulting angle curves are
straight lines (see Figure 4b).
The strip boundaries for many ordinary surfaces are
often close to constant-angle curves. This means that the
longitudinal curves on the surface to a great extent
determine the V3 angle curve, while the P-value function
and the tangent-definition curves have more influence on
the V2 and V4 curves. Further, the variation of 1/3 is also
seen in the Vz and I/4 curves. This is the background to
a minor redefinition of the original Formela angles. To
simplify the geometric interpretation of the angle curves
and eliminate the dominating V3 variation, the angle
curves V2 and V4 are replaced by A 2 and A 4, which are
angles relative to the chord vector. The midpoint of the
FANGA angles A z and A 4 is always the point which has
the same slope as the chord (=A3) (see Figure 3).
These redefined Formela curves, together with a

volume 25 number 7 july 1993 413

G Liden and S K E Westberg

A special case occurs when the conic segment becomes

a straight line, and no extrapolation at all is possible. In
such an area of a surface strip, W,NGt, curves for
nonextrapolated segments have to be computed.
'\ .. f ~ . "\
\ - k, The major advantage of the FANGA method is that only
a few planar curves per strip are required to show the
'iI \. quality of the surface. In practice, as in the optimization
example below, it is sufficient to study and optimize with
only one of the FANGA curves per strip.

SURFACE ANALYSIS USING FANGA CURVES

A number of production aircraft surfaces (from the Saab
(a) Griffin fighter and the Saab 340 and 2000 commuter
airliners) have been studied, and we have found good
correspondence between smooth FANGA curves and
ANGLE, LENGIH high-quality surfaces (see Figures 6-8). Also, principal
curvature directions are plotted, since this is one of the
most sensitive tools for surface analysis. Unfortunately,
though they are very difficult to use for optimization.
The example in Figure 6 is a part of a nacelle surface.
The figure shows the section segment curves used for the
CL FANGA computation in strips 1 and 3. Strip 3 starts with
a straight line, which makes extrapolation to constant
angles impossible, and the FANGA curves must be
computed for nonextrapolated segments. In the end part
of strip 3, the section curves are limited by conic
asymptotes.
The example in Figure 7 is a part of a forward fuselage.
A~
Note the correspondence between the reflection lines and
A3 the 2D FANGA curves.
The example in Figure 8 is a part of a fairing on a
control surface. Note the 'kinks' in the FANGA curves.
A2 This shape is necessary to avoid a collision with another
A1 part of the fairing, This preliminary surface is not yet
perfect. There are still small oscillations in the FANGA
(b) S = XO S = X curves.
The FANGA curves cannot be used directly in the
Figure 4. Ellipsoid-surface; ( a ) surJace strip which is"part manual surface-definition work, but the curves clearly
of ellipsoid, (b) FANGA curves for extrapolated ellipsoid indicate to the loftsman in what 'directions' points and
surface vectors have to be modified to improve the quality of a
[(a) : originalcurvesegment; -: extrapolatedcurvesegment.] surface. It would also be quite easy to write functions
which would give the loftsman more direct help in
interpreting the FANGA curves, and, for instance,
estimating the distance that a point should be moved.
chord-length variation curve CL, are called the FANGA
However, no such functions are planned for the
curves.
moment, since we believe that the future for the FANGA
The addition of the chord-length variation makes it
curves is as objective functions when the surface creation
possible to generate a class of surface strips from a set
is formulated and solved as an optimization problem.
of FANGA curves A1, A2, A3, A5 and CL. Two surface
strips from the same set of curves are shown in Figure
5. Note that A4 is not needed, since it is solely dependent
SURFACE OPTIMIZATION USING FANGA
on A2, A 3 and CL.
The extrapolation angles can be chosen rather
CURVES
arbitrarily, but we try to extrapolate as much as possible, In the future, there will, no doubt, be many more
since any errors or irregularities of the surface are automatic functions for the generation of high-quality
magnified by the extrapolation. surfaces. A combination of optimization and AI
The amount of extrapolation is, however, also limited techniques (expert systems) which can handle surface-
by the type of conic segment. For parabolas and shape types and surface-definition rules will probably
hyperbolas, the asymptotes determine the maximum make it possible for even nonspecialists to define
constant angles. high-quality surfaces.

414 computer-aided design

 Fairing of surfaces with optimization techniques using FANGAcurves as the quality criterion
iNPUT
FRNGR
VIEN XY
VJEN XZ
VIEW ISO
OUTPUT
FRNGA
Figure 5. Many surface strips can be generated from one set of FANGA curves
However, at the current stage of development, an
optimization-based surface-definition process should
interact intimately with the loftsman's geometry
knowledge and experience to be efficient.
The definition of a preliminary surface close to the
final production surface can be developed using
traditional methods. The time that it takes a loftsman to
define such a surface is usually not a problem, and the
optimization computations are better conditioned if
started from such a surface.
It is in the last phase of the surface-definition process
that the use of optimization techniques is most profikble.
It is extremely time-consuming to make the small
volume 25 number 7 july 1993
adjustments in the surface input data that are necessary
for a high-nuality surface.
The traditional input data to a conic-lofting modeller
are points and vectors, which define the longitudinal-limit
and tangent-definition curves, the spine, and the scalar
functions. The appropriate additional input data for a
loftsman are, for instance, a vector which defines the
direction in which a curve point may be moved, and a
vector which defines how a curve tangent is allowed to
rotate (see Figure 9). These geometrical-variation
restrictions can be defined using standard functions in a
geometry system.
We believe that the most efficient way to define a
415
G Liden and S K E Wes[berg
STRIP i
5TRI? i STRTP 3
S~RXP 2
Figure 6. Part qf" nacelle surJace
surface is by (sub-)optimizing parts of the surface, i.e.
letting only a few points and vectors (up to 20), which
define a natural part of a surface, be the variables in the
optimization problem. With this limited number of
variables, it is easier for the loftsman to define a well
conditioned optimization problem, and it is also much
easier to interpret the optimization result.
This is the way in which the loftsman works today,
and the difference using optimization techniques is that
the computer automatically finds the best solution for
the given set of variables.
Another very important reason for defining surfaces
in close interaction with an optimization function is that
the loftsman gets a clear picture of the geometry problem,
and is able to predict which combinations of constraints
are geometrically possible. This is an important and very
difficult part of surface-definition work, since a surface
practically never meets all the requirements of production,
aerodynamics and other sources. A surface is always a
416
STRRJGHT ~~'<\\\\,\'j ' (~'\t'!'~1'
Sq-R~P Ll
compromise, a result of discussions between departments,
and it is, of course, essential that the loftsman can provide
geometry facts for these discussions.
The criterion for a high-quality surface is FAN~A curves
that are smooth. Thi.~ can be achieved by minimizing the
strain energy of the FAN6A curves, as described in the
following section. An example of optimization is given
in Figure 10. The surface, part of a car roof, was originally
defined as a physical model. Note again the corre-
spondence between FANGA curves and reflection lines.
Initially, only the chord-length variation FANGA curves
(one curve per strip) were used in the optimization. The
number of variables, controlling points and tangents was
ten. However some oscillations still remained on the
FANGA c u r v e s A 2 and A 3 after the optimiza'Jon. To
reduce these, an additional optimization was performed
modifying the P value and its derivative across section 3
from the right. In this optimization, the FANGA curve
A 2 w a s used.
computer-aided design
 Fairing of surfaces with optimization techniques using FANGAcurves as the quality criterion
[0P V[EN
J50 VIEN
Figure 7. P a r t o f f o r w a r d f u s e l a g e
OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Two formulations of the objective function have been
implemented. Both have their advantages, and either may
be preferred in different cases.
In the first formulation, the curvature of the FANGA
curves is minimized. The curvature c of the FA~GA curves
created as cubic splines is computed for N curves at M
stations along the surface strip(s).
N M
min F(~)= ~ ~ (cu(YO) z
i=1 j=l
subject to ~ . . . . ~<~ ~ X,pper, where the design variables x
are parameters controlling the geometric data, i.e. points,
tangents and P values, for defining the surface.
A point can, for instance, be allowed to move along a
line or a curve by letting one design variable control it.
Using two design variables, it can be moved in a plane.
A tangent can be allowed to move in a plane by letting
one design variable control it. Using t w o design variables,
it can be moved in space.
volume 25 number 7 july 1993
CL
,qq
FI3
R2
R'[
This formulation leads to surfaces that are as smooth
and fair as possible for the given constraints. The
surface-shape type is not normally changed.
In the second formulation, the objective is to minimize
the deviations between a set of target curves and
corresponding FANGA curves of the surface. The
deviations r are measured for N curves at M stations
along the surface strip(s).
N M
min F(.~)= ~" ~ (ru(~)) 2
i=1 j=l
subject to xl. . . . ~-X~'~Xupper" With target curves, the
surface-shape type can be modified. To make the
reflection lines in the car-roof example (Figure 10) change
from a convex to a concave shape would require target
curves.
The minimization is performed as an iterative
procedure in which the set of design variables x at each
step k are modified according to
:~k ÷ 1 = YCk-- lkSR(yc)
417
G Lidcn and S K E Westberg

In Newton's method, the search direction is determined

as

s~(2) = G~ 1(2)gk(2)

where y is the gradient of F, and G is the Hessian matrix

including 2nd-order derivatives.
Newton's method is, however, not practical to use
CL directly, owing to the time-consuming computation of
the inverted Hessian. Instead, different methods for
finding an approximation to this term have been
developed ~3
In the quasi-Newton method, the inverted Hessian,
A3
R2 i.e. the term G- 1, is approximated by a matrix H which
R1 is based on information gained from the behaviour of
S~fl]P 1 previous steps and gradients.
There have been several proposals on how to determine
an expression for the matrix H. In our program, we have
implemented the D F P method (Davidson--Fletcher
Powell) and the BFS method (Broyden-Fletcher-
Shanno) 13'14. Both methods have turned out to be
equally suitable for our problem.
A3
R2 ~
fll
S~RIP 2
1 D search
To find the step-size parameter l which minimizes F(x)
along the current search direction, a 1D search has to
be made.
There exist many methods for this. In our
STRIP
1 ~/-~._._~ll_ll_///llllrlill program, we use Swann's method for bounding the
search, and Powell's successive quadratic search for the
~l' IJllll IJl minimization ~3, ~4

Figure 8. Part of fairing on control surface
[Top figure: top view; bottom figure: ISO view.]
v1
Implementation
The optimization routines have been implemented on a
VAX, and linked to our surface-definition system N M G .
Currently, the code is not portable, but our aim is to
convert our test program to a production (stand-alone)
LI module that is robust, flexible and fast, and which can
be implemented in any geometry system.

Figure 9. Input data to optimization function
[Point P~ defining the limit curve L 1 is allowed to move in the direction
of VI; maximum deviations: - 0 . 1 to +0.5 mm. Tangent Tz defining
the limit curve L z is allowed to rotate towards V2; maximum deviations:
- 3 to +5' .]
where 1k is a step-size parameter, and sk is the search
direction.
Search direction
The evaluation of search directions is dependent on the
optimization method used.
CONCLUSIONS
Surface definition is today a very time-consuming process
which it would be very profitable to automate as much
as possible. However, it is also a task which is very
complex and can only be done by specialists.
Hence, our aim has been to find a method which
can relieve the loftsman from time-consuming data
modification, but still work in close interaction with
him/her. This method we call FAN,A, and a great number
of examples show that it is usable for both surface analysis
and surface optimization.
Our optimization approach leads to very well
conditioned and small minimization problems. All our
tests also indicate that the time taken for the definition
of high-quality surfaces can be drastically reduced with
the FANGA optimization method.

418 computer-aided design

 Fairing of surfaces with optimization t e c h n i q u e s using FANGAcurves as the quality criterion

STRIP I
To v

STRIP 2
~IRTP

NON-OPTIMIZED OPTIMIZED

STRIP I STRIP 1
CL CL

Al Rl
R2 R2
R3 A3
R4 A~

STRIP 2 STRIP 2
- CL CL
A1 A1
R2 A2
---" A3 R3
RLI ALl

STRIP 3
CL STRIP 3
CL
RI

,--..._..
Rl
A2
"•A2 -------- A3
ALl
R3

(a) ~R L~

NON-OPTIMIZED OPTIMIZEO

j,

(b) NON-OPTIMIZEO OPTIMIZED

-I t I Ill I
/ I / / / . . . . I ~ ~

I
\ \ I / \ \--I/ -~": \ I / ;
I I II Iit lib--...... I I / r
I I I I IIII II\"." ~ ' - ~ , I t t I

"7TT
(c) I! lIlltfltt l
F i g u r e 10. Car roof," (a) FANGA optimization, ( b ) reflection lines, ( c ) principal curvature directions

volume 25 n u m b e r 7 july 1993 419

G Liden and S K E Westberg
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work has been carried out in cooperation with Pertti
Skillermark and the lofting group at Saab.
Special thanks are due to Linde Wittmeyer-Koch and
Lars-Erik Andersson at Link6ping University, Sweden.
Linde guided and supported students who have helped
us in parts of the work, and Lars-Erik taught us a lot in
the field of computational geometry.
Finally, we are grateful to Alan McLean at Saab for
his encouragement and support. Alan has realized the
importance of good geometry, which is essential for an
aircraft company, and he has made it possible for us to
develop our ideas.
REFERENCES
1 Ferguson, D R et al. 'Surface shape control
using constrained optimization on the B-spline
representation' Comput. Aided Geom. Des. No 5
(1988) pp 87-103
2 Andersson, E et aL 'Automatic construction of
surfaces with prescribed shape' Comput.-Aided Des.
Vol 20 No 6 (1988) pp 317-324
3 Lott, N J and Pullin, D I 'Method for fairing B-spline
surfaces' Comput.-Aided Des. Vol 20 No 10 (1988)
pp 597-604
4 Kaufmann, E and Klass, R 'Smoothing surfaces using
reflection lines for families of splines' Comput.-A ided
Des. Vol 20 No 6 (1988) pp 312-316
420
5 Williams, C J K 'Use of structural analogy in
generation of smooth surfaces for engineering
purposes' Comput.-Aided Des. Vol 19 No 6 (1987)
pp 310-322
6 Faux, I D and Pratt, M J Computational Geometry
.[br Design and Manufacture Ellis Horwood, UK
(1979)
7 Lidbro, N 'Modern aircraft geometry' Aircraft Eng.
Vol 28 (Nov 1956) pp 388 394
8 Lidbro, N 'Analytische Formbestimmungen yon
Schiffen' Sch~ffstechnik Vol 8 (Jul 1961) pp 91-96
9 Skappel, H E 'FORMELA: a general design and
production data system for sculptured products'
Comput.-Aided Des. Vol 5 No 2 (1973) pp 68--76
10 Ball, A A 'CONSURF. Part 1: Introduction of the
conic lofting tile' Comput.-Aided Des. Vol 6 No 4
(1974) pp 243-249
11 Ball, A A 'CONSURF. Part 2: Description of the
algorithms' Comput.-Aided Des. Vol 7 No 4 (1975)
pp 237 242
12 Bali, A A 'CONSURF. Part 3: How the program
is used' Comput.-Aided Des. Vol 9 No 1 (1977)
pp 9-12
13 Gill, P E et aL Practical Optimization Academic Press
(1981)
14 Reklaitis, G V et aL Engineering Optimization:
Methods and Applications John Wiley (1983)
computer-aided design