A hybrid and automated approach to adapt geometry model for CAD/CAE integration

  • Qingqing Feng
  • Xionghui ZhouEmail author
  • Junjie Li
Original Article


Traditional adaption of CAD geometry, which plays an important role in generating effective and fit-for-purpose finite element models, is usually carried out manually and optionally with excessive dependence on engineer’s experience. Automatic and efficient geometry modification before simulation evidently improves design efficiency and quality, and cuts down product life cycle. This paper represents an automatic approach to generate simplified and idealized geometry models for CAE simulation, which consists of hybrid model simplification criteria, feature-based model simplification, and simulation intent driven geometry modification. Hybrid adaption criteria takes detailed features geometric dimension, geometry topology, design intent into consideration synthetically. Simulation intent-driven modification with the help of virtual topology operators helps to deal with geometry at a higher level to get an ameliorative boundary for mesh without perturbing the original design model with constructing history for down-stream manufacture-oriented application, such as machining feature recognition and process planning. Development of plug-in toolkit guarantees automation of the simplification process and helps generate simulation-fitted geometry for subsequent analysis and simulation process. Prototype system and cases are implemented to demonstrate the result and efficiency of the proposed approach.


Geometry modification Feature suppression Feature simplification Virtual topology Automation 



  1. 1.
    Thakur A, Banerjee AG, Gupta SK (2009) A survey of CAD model simplification techniques for physics-based simulation applications. Comput Aided Des 41(2):65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kwon S, Kim BC, Mun D, Han S (2015) Simplification of feature-based 3D CAD assembly data of ship and offshore equipment using quantitative evaluation metrics. Comput Aided Des 59:140–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nolan DC, Tierney CM, Armstrong CG, Robinson TT (2015) Defining simulation intent. Computer-Aided Design 59:50–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Foucault G, Cuillière JC, François V, Léon JC, Maranzana R (2013) Generalizing the advancing front method to composite surfaces in the context of meshing constraints topology. Comput Aided Des 45(11):1408–1425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gujarathi GP, Ma YS (2011) Parametric CAD/CAE integration using a common data model. J Manuf Syst 30(3):118–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sanfilippo EM, Borgo S (2016) What are features? An ontology-based review of the literature. Comput Aided Des 80:9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee SH, Lee K (2012) Simultaneous and incremental feature-based multiresolution modeling with feature operations in part design. Comput Aided Des 44(5):457–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim BC, Mun D (2014) “Feature-based simplification of boundary representation models using sequential iterative volume decomposition. Comput Graph 38:97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mounir H, Nizar A, Borhen L, Benamara A, Deneux D (2013) FEM simulation based on CAD model simplification: a comparison study between the hybrid method and the technique using a removing details. In: Haddar M, Romdhane L, Louati J, Ben Amara A (eds) Design and modeling of mechanical systems. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mun D, Ramani K (2011) Knowledge-based part similarity measurement utilizing ontology and multi-criteria decision making technique. Adv Eng Inform 25(2):119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mun D, Kim BC (2017) Extended progressive simplification of feature-based CAD models. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 93:915–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kwon S, Mun D, Kim BC, Han S (2016) Feature shape complexity: a new criterion for the simplification of feature-based 3D CAD models. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 88:1831–1843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Woo Y (2014) Abstraction of mid-surfaces from solid models of thin-walled parts: a divide-and-conquer approach. Comput Aided Des 47:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boussuge F, Léon J-C, Hahmann S, Fine L (2014) Extraction of generative processes from B-Rep shapes and application to idealization transformations. Comput Aided Des 46:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boussuge F, Léon J-C, Hahmann S, Fine L (2014) Idealized models for FEA derived from generative modeling processes based on extrusion primitives. Eng Comput 31(3):513–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bidarra R, Madeira J, Neels WJ, Bronsvoort WF (2005) Efficiency of boundary evaluation for a cellular model. Comput Aided Des 37(12):1266–1284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sun R, Gao S, Zhao W (2010) An approach to B-rep model simplification based on region suppression. Comput Graph 34(5):556–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen J, Cao B, Zheng Y, Xie L, Li C, Xiao Z (2015) Automatic surface repairing, defeaturing and meshing algorithms based on an extended B-rep. Adv Eng Softw 86:55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sheffer MBA (2000) Virtual topology operators for meshing. Int J Comput Geomet Appl 10(3):309–331CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Foucault G, Cuillière J-C, François V (2008) Adaptation of CAD model topology for finite element analysis. Comput Aided Des 40(2):176–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cuillière J-C, Francois V, Drouet J-M, Automatic mesh generation and transformation for topology optimization methods. Computer-Aided Design 45:1489–1506Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cuillière J-C, François V, Lacroix R (2016) A new approach to automatic and a priori mesh adaptation around circular holes for finite element analysis. Comput Aided Des 77:18–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tierney CM, Sun L, Robinson TT, Armstrong CG (2015) Generating analysis topology using virtual topology operators. Proc Eng 124:226–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xia Z, Wang Q, Wang Y, Yu C (2015) A CAD/CAE incorporate software framework using a unified representation architecture. Adv Eng Softw 87:68–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xia Z, Wang Q, Liu Q, Wang Y, Liu J, Chen G (2016) A novel approach for automatic reconstruction of boundary condition in structure analysis. Adv Eng Softw 96:38–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhan P, Jayaram U, Kim O, Zhu L (2010) Knowledge representation and ontology mapping methods for product data in engineering applications. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 10(2):021004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hamri O, Léon JC, Giannini F, Falcidieno B (2010) Software environment for CAD/CAE integration. Adv Eng Softw 41:1211–1222CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Park HS, Dang XP (2010) Structural optimization based on CAD–CAE integration and metamodeling techniques. Comput Aided Des 42(10):889–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Louhichi B, Abenhaim GN, Tahan AS (2014) CAD/CAE integration: updating the CAD model after a FEM analysis. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 76:391–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    J Wang et al (2016) A CAD/CAE-integrated structural design framework for machine tools. Int JAdv Manuf Technol 91:545–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Engineering Research Center of Die and Mold CADShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations