Slides PDF

Degenerate Surface Patches
and Isogeometric Analysis
Ulrich Reif
Darmstadt University of Technology
March 13, 2023
U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 1 / 40

Simulation beyond hat functions
• Macro elements on unstructured meshes

• 2d: established and useful for triangular meshes
• 3d: known for tetrahedral meshes, but many sub-patches
• classical technique, not exactly IGA
• Constructions for (partially) structured meshes
• 2d: under investigation for quad meshes
• 3d: still a challenge for hex meshes
• spline flavor, well suited for IGA

Isogeometric Analysis (IGA)
• Given elliptic PDE

Lu = f on Ω ⊂ Rd
with suitable boundary conditions.
• Parametrize domain Ω by spline wrt. basis b1 , . . . , bm
X
ϕ : [0, 1]d × {1, . . . , n} =: Γ → Ω, ϕ = bj ϕ j .
j

• Given elliptic PDE
Lu = f on Ω ⊂ Rd
with suitable boundary conditions.
• Parametrize domain Ω by spline wrt. basis b1 , . . . , bm
X
ϕ : [0, 1]d × {1, . . . , n} =: Γ → Ω, ϕ = bj ϕ j .
j
• Transform PDE by letting v = u ◦ ϕ and g = f ◦ ϕ ,
L̃v = g on Γ.
• Approximate v in the same spline space,

X
v ≈ vh = bj vj .
j

• Consider transformed PDE
L̃v = g on Γ.
• The trace of the parametrized surface

X
ϕ , vh ] =
sh = [ϕ ϕj , vj ] : Γ → Rd+1
bj · [ϕ
j
equals the graph of the approximation uh = vh ◦ ϕ −1 ,
{sh (γ) : γ ∈ Γ} = {[x, uh (x)] : x ∈ Ω}.
• Ritz-Galerkin formulation of fourth order PDEs requires uh ∈ H 2 .

• Practically, this means that the trace of sh has to be at least G 1 .

From quad to hex meshes
• New interest in old techniques for surface modeling

• Geometric continuity
• Subdivision
• Singular parametrization


• Subdivision
• Training ground: 2d quad meshes


• Subdivision
• Training ground: 2d quad meshes
• Competition site: 3d hex meshes
• Focus research on 2d approaches that admit extension to 3d

Extraordinary points on multi-patch surfaces

Extraordinary points on multi-patch surfaces

Geometric continuity
• G 1 surface models are well known

• Excellent shape → J. Peters
• Relatively simple construction in 2d
• Extension to 3d seems to be very difficult due to large variety of
situations and high algebraic complexity of conditions → M. Kapl

Subdivision

• Highly popular in computer graphics due to simplicity
• Considered promising in IGA

Subdivision


Subdivision


Subdivision


Give it a try!
• 2000: Cirak, Ortiz, Schröder

• 2010: Burkhart, Hamann, Umlauf
• 2014: Nguyen, Karciauskas, Peters
• 2016: Jüttler, Mantzaflaris, Perl, Rumpf
• 2016: Pan, Xu, Xu, Zhang
• 2016: Kang, Li, Chen, Deng
• 2018: Pan, Rabczuk, Chen, Xu, Pan
• 2019: Pan, Rabczuk, Chen, Xu, Pan
• 2020: Liu, McBride, Saxena, Steinmann
• 2020: Xie, Xu, Dong, Xu, Deng, Mourrain, Zhang
• 2021: Wei, Li, Zhang, Hughes
• 2022: Kang, Hu, Yong, Li
• ...
Topics to be addressed
1. Algorithms
• 2d: optimize spectrum
• 3d: design new algorithms
2. Analysis
• 2d: largely done
• 3d: completely open
3. Implementation
• 2d: quadrature non-trivial
• 3d: cubature even less trivial

1. Algorithms – 3d
• Known 3d variants of Catmull-Clark:

• MacCracken and Joy ’96
• Bajaj, Schaefer, Warren, and Xu ’01
• Both variants have spectrum
1 > λ1 > λ2 > λ3 > λ4 · · ·
• Strong unisotropy upon refinement

1 > λ1 > λ2 > λ3 > λ4 · · ·


1 > λ1 > λ2 > λ3 > λ4 · · ·
Task
Construct a 3d variant of Catmull-Clark with
1 > λ = λ = λ > µ > ···
and smallest possible µ.


1 > λ1 > λ2 > λ3 > λ4 · · ·
Task
Construct a 3d variant of Doo-Sabin with
1 > λ = λ = λ > µ > ···
and smallest possible µ.

2. Analysis – Regularity 2d
Analysis of 2d algorithms is almost complete.

• Conditions for C 1 are known (easy to fulfil)
• Conditions for C 2 are known (hard to fulfil)
• R. & Schröder ’01: C 1 conditions imply square integrability of
principal curvatures κ1 , κ2

Analysis of 2d algorithms is almost complete.

• Conditions for C 1 are known (easy to fulfil)
• Conditions for C 2 are known (hard to fulfil)
• R. & Schröder ’01: C 1 conditions imply square integrability of
principal curvatures κ1 , κ2
Task
Consider hyper-surface in Rd+1 , whose trace s is given by the graph of
some function u,
s = {(x, u(x)) : x ∈ Ω},
and show that κ1 , κ2 ∈ L2 (s) implies u ∈ H 2 (Ω).

Task
Establish sufficient conditions for C 1 -regularity of trivariate subdivision
algorithms.
• Consider threedimensional surfaces in R4 .

• Distinguish extraordinary edges and vertices.
• Define characteristic map.
• What is regularity of the characteristic map?

Task
Verify C 1 -conditions for specific algorithms.
• Discrete Fourier transform not applicable.

• Injectivity of the characteristic map may be hard to check.

Task
Verify C 1 -conditions for specific algorithms.
• Discrete Fourier transform not applicable.

• Injectivity of the characteristic map may be hard to check.
Task
Establish sufficient conditions for square integrability of principal
curvatures of trivariate subdivision algorithms.

Singular parametrization
• G 1 surface models are well known → D-patches

• Poor shape (irrelevant for IGA)
• Generalization to 3d seems to be straightforward

D-patches
Definition
A surface patch
X
x(s, t) = xj,k s j t k , (s, t) ∈ [0, 1]2 ,
j,k≥0
with Taylor coefficients xj,k ∈ R3 is called degenerate if

• ∂s x(0, 0) = x1,0 = ∂t x(0, 0) = x0,1 = 0 and ∂st x = x1,1 = 0.

D-patches
Definition
A surface patch
X
x(s, t) = xj,k s j t k , (s, t) ∈ [0, 1]2 ,
j,k≥0
with Taylor coefficients xj,k ∈ R3 is called degenerate if

• ∂s x(0, 0) = x1,0 = ∂t x(0, 0) = x0,1 = 0 and ∂st x = x1,1 = 0.
It is called a D-patch if, in addition,

• x2,0 and x0,2 are linearly independent.
• There exist numbers a, b, c, d with b, c > 0 such that

x2,1 a b x2,0
= · .
x1,2 c d x0,2

D-patches in Bézier form

D-patches in Bézier form
A Bézier surface
n
X
x(s, t) = bjn (s)bkn (t)pj,k , (s, t) ∈ [0, 1]2 ,
j,k=0
of order (n, n) with control points pj,k ∈ R3 is degenerate if

• m := p0,0 = p1,0 = p0,1 = p1,1 .
It is a D-patch if, in addition,

• p2,0 − m and p0,2 − m are linearly independent.
• There exist numbers a, b, c, d with b, c > 0 such that

p2,1 − m a b p2,0 − m
= · .
p1,2 − m c d p0,2 − m

Regularity of D-patches
Theorem (R. ’93)

In a vicinity of the singular point, the trace of a D-patch x can be
parametrized regularly in the form
x(s, t) = y(u, v ) := x0,0 + ux2,0 + v x0,2 + h(u, v )n,
where the D-function h is differentiable with ∇h(0, 0) = 0, and

x2,0 × x0,2
n := .
kx2,0 × x0,2 k
is the normal vector at the singular point.

Proof
• Consider the problem in normal form,
x0,0 = 0, x2,0 = e1 , x0,2 = e2 , n = e3
• Show normal continuity,
∂s x(s, t) × ∂t x(s, t)
lim n(s, t) = lim = e3 .
(s,t)→(0,0) (s,t)→(0,0) k∂s x(s, t) × ∂t x(s, t)k
• With  
x(s, t)
x(s, t)
x(s, t) = y (s, t) , ξ (s, t) := ,
y (s, t)
z(s, t)
show that the projection Π : x → ξ of x into the xy -plane is locally
injective.

Proof

Proof (cont’d)
• Let (u, v ) = ξ (s, t) and define
h(u, v ) := z(s, t) = z(ξξ −1 (s, t)).
Then the trace of x equals the graph of h,

   
x(s, t) u
x(s, t) = y (s, t) =  v  .
z(s, t) h(u, v )
• Use the mean value theorem and normal continuity to show that
∇h(0, 0) = 0.
That is, h is C 1 .

Example: Original figures from ’93

• Figure format .mtp no longer supported


• Diapositives lost


• Matlab source code does not run

Example: Problems with long term data preservation

• Matlab source code does not run

Properties of D-patches
• G1
• Easy to implement (despite complexity of analysis)
• Uniform framework
• Refinability (like subdivision, unlike geometric continuity)
• Curvature unbounded (C 2 known, but complicated)
• Shape quality substandard

Properties of D-patches

Application in IGA
• Poor shape irrelevant for IGA

• Approximation power?
• Numerical results in 2d IGA: convincing
• Numerical results in 3d IGA: less convincing

Application in IGA
Theorem (R. ’22)

The improper integral
Z 1Z 1
x mp y np
dxdy
0 0 (xy + x 3 + y 3 )`p−1
is finite if and only if
m + n + min{m, n} > 3` − 6/p.

Application in IGA

• Theoretical result: D-functions are C 1 , but not H 2
• Stiffness matrix has infinite entries → flawed approach

Application in IGA

• Repair possible by imposing extra conditions

Application in IGA
Theorem (R. ’22)

A D-function h = z ◦ ξ −1 is in W 2,p (Ω) for
a) p ∈ [1, 6/5) iff z10 = z01 = 0;
b) p ∈ [6/5, 3/2) iff z as above and z11 = 0;
c) p ∈ [3/2, 2) iff z as above and z21 = z12 = 0;
d) p ∈ [2, 3) iff z as above and z31 = 3αz30 /2, z13 = 3δz03 /2;
e) p ∈ [3, 6) iff z as above and z30 = z03 = 0 and
z41 = 2αz40 + βz22 , z14 = 2δz04 + γz22 .
f) p ∈ [6, ∞) iff z as above and
z51 = [z22 /2, z40 ] · (2ξξ 31 − 3αξξ 30 − 2βξξ 12 ) + βz32 + 5αz50 /2

z15 = [z22 /2, z04 ] · (2ξξ 13 − 3δξξ 03 − 2γξξ 21 ) + γz23 + 5δz05 /2.

Application in IGA

• Repair possible by imposing extra conditions
• Extension to 3d not hopeless, but analysis highly demanding

Rounded corners
Definition
A surface patch
X
x(s, t) = xj,k s j t k , (s, t) ∈ [0, 1]2 ,
j,k≥0
with Taylor coefficients xj,k ∈ R3 has a rounded corner at (0, 0) if:

• There exists a unit vector t ∈ R3 and factors µ, λ > 0 such that
x1,0 = λt, x0,1 = −µt.
• The following vectors are linearly dependent:
r := µx2,0 + λx1,1 , s := λx0,2 + µx1,1 , and t.
•
ht × r, t × si > 0.
Rounded corners in Bézier form (simplified)

Rounded corners in Bézier form (simplified)
A Bézier surface
n
X
j,k=0
with control points pj,k ∈ R3 has a rounded corner at (0, 0) if

• the following points are collinear:
p0,0 , p1,0 , p0,1
• the following points are coplanar:
p0,0 , p1,0 , p0,1 , p2,0 , p0,2 , p1,1
• the following inner products have equal sign:
hp2,0 , p1,0 − p0,0 i, hp0,2 , p1,0 − p0,0 i, hp1,1 , p1,0 − p0,0 i

Regularity of patches with rounded corners
Theorem (Marussig & R. ’22)

In a vicinity of the singular point, the trace of a patch x with rounded
corner at (0, 0) can be parametrized regularly in the form
x(s, t) = y(u, v ) := x0,0 + ut + v r + h(u, v )n,
where the function h is differentiable with ∇h(0, 0) = 0, and

t×r
n := .
kt × rk
is the normal vector at the singular point.

Example: Hemisphere
Parametrization:
6
C -continuous pole  
2us2 s3
y(u, v) =  2vs2 s3  , [u, v] ∈ [−1, 1]2
2s3 − 1
z
with
s1 = (1 − u2 )(1 − v 2 )
√ −1
x s2 = (1 − s41 )2 u2 + v 2 + s1
y −1
Rounded corner s3 = u2 s22 + v 2 s22 + 1

Example: Hemisphere
standard constrained

Example: Hemisphere
(a) Approximation (b) Normal vector
10−1 102
10−2 101 1
1 2
10−3 100
3
10−4
ε
10−1
−5
10
10−2
10−6 5 4
10−3
10−7
1 10−4 1
4 8 16 32 64 8 16 32 64
Number of elements Number of elements
n = 2 standard n = 3 standard n = 4 standard
n = 2 constrained n = 3 constrained n = 4 constrained

Example: Hemisphere
102 standard
constrained
100
10−2
ε
10−4
10−6
10−7 10−6 10−5 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1
Distance to corner

Example: Boat Fender

Example: Boat Fender

Properties of patches with rounded corners
• G1
• Increased flexibility compared with regular setup
• Useful for untrimming → Hughes & Marussig
• Principal curvatures unbounded

Properties of patches with rounded corners
• G1
• Useful for untrimming → Hughes & Marussig
• Principal curvatures unbounded, but in L3−ε → IGA

Edge collapse in Bézier form (simplified)

Edge collapse in Bézier form (simplified)
A Bézier surface
n
X
j,k=0
with control points pj,k ∈ R3 has an edge collapse at 0 × [0, 1] if

• the following points coincide:
m := p0,0 = · · · = p0,n
The edge collapse is smooth if

• the following points are coplanar:
m, p1,0 , p1,1 , . . . , p1,n

• the following inner products have equal sign:
hp1,1 − m, p1,0 − mi, hp1,2 − m, p1,1 − mi, . . . , hp1,n − m, p1,n−1 − mi

Regularity of patches with smooth edge collapse
Theorem (R. ’23)

In a vicinity of the singular edge, the trace of a Bézier patch x with smooth
edge collapse at 0 × [0, 1] can be parametrized regularly in the form
x(s, t) = y(u, v ) := p0,0 + us + v t + h(u, v )n,
where
s×t
s := p1,1 − m, t := p1,n − m, n :=
ks × tk
and the function h is differentiable with ∇h(0, 0) = 0.

Edge collapse vs. polar subdivision

Properties of patches with smooth edge collapse
• G1
• Easy to implement
• Shape quality?
• Principal curvatures bounded → IGA

Conclusion
• Spline spaces for structured hex meshes still offer a big challenge.
• Geometric continuity seems to be impractical.
• Subdivision needs improved algorithms and thorough analysis.
• Singular parametrization is mined area.

Conclusion
• Spline spaces for structured hex meshes still offer a big challenge.
• Geometric continuity seems to be impractical.
• Subdivision needs improved algorithms and thorough analysis.
• Singular parametrization is mined area.
• Don’t trust experimental results unless based on solid ground.
• Consider alternatives.
• Be open and unbiased.

Slides PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Slides PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Degenerate Surface Patches

and Isogeometric Analysis

Darmstadt University of Technology

March 13, 2023

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 1 / 40

• Macro elements on unstructured meshes

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 2 / 40

• Given elliptic PDE

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 3 / 40

• Transform PDE by letting v = u ◦ ϕ and g = f ◦ ϕ ,

• Approximate v in the same spline space,

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 3 / 40

• Consider transformed PDE

• The trace of the parametrized surface

equals the graph of the approximation uh = vh ◦ ϕ −1 ,

{sh (γ) : γ ∈ Γ} = {[x, uh (x)] : x ∈ Ω}.

• Ritz-Galerkin formulation of fourth order PDEs requires uh ∈ H 2 .

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 4 / 40

• New interest in old techniques for surface modeling

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 5 / 40

• New interest in old techniques for surface modeling

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 5 / 40

• New interest in old techniques for surface modeling

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 5 / 40

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 6 / 40

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 6 / 40

• G 1 surface models are well known

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 7 / 40

• G 1 surface models are well known

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 8 / 40

• G 1 surface models are well known

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 8 / 40

• G 1 surface models are well known

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 8 / 40

• G 1 surface models are well known

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 8 / 40

• 2000: Cirak, Ortiz, Schröder

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 10 / 40

• Known 3d variants of Catmull-Clark:

1 > λ1 > λ2 > λ3 > λ4 · · ·

• Strong unisotropy upon refinement

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 11 / 40

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 11 / 40

• Known 3d variants of Catmull-Clark:

1 > λ1 > λ2 > λ3 > λ4 · · ·

• Strong unisotropy upon refinement

1 > λ = λ = λ > µ > ···

and smallest possible µ.

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 11 / 40

• Known 3d variants of Catmull-Clark:

1 > λ1 > λ2 > λ3 > λ4 · · ·

• Strong unisotropy upon refinement

1 > λ = λ = λ > µ > ···

and smallest possible µ.

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 11 / 40

Analysis of 2d algorithms is almost complete.

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 12 / 40

Analysis of 2d algorithms is almost complete.

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 12 / 40

• Consider threedimensional surfaces in R4 .

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 13 / 40

• Discrete Fourier transform not applicable.

U. Reif Degenerate Surface Patches March 13, 2023 14 / 40