Deformed Distance Fields for Simulation of Non-Penetrating Flexible Bodies

  • Susan Fisher
  • Ming C. Lin
Part of the Eurographics book series (EUROGRAPH)


We present a novel penetration depth estimation algorithm based on the use of deformed distance fields for simulation of non-penetrating flexible bodies. We assume that the continuum of non-rigid models are discretized using standard techniques, such as finite element methods. As the objects deform, the distance fields are deformed accordingly to estimate penetration depth, allowing enforcement of non-penetration constraints between two colliding elastic bodies. Our approach can automatically handle self-penetration and inter-penetration in a uniform manner. We demonstrate its effectiveness on moderately complex animated scenes.


Penetration Depth Collision Detection Tetrahedral Element Polygonal Mesh Distance Field 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    P. Agarwal, L. J. Guibas, S. Har-Peled, A. Rabinovitch, and M. Sharir. Penetration depth of two convex polytopes in 3d. Nordic J. Computing, 7:227–240, 2000.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    C. E. Buckley and L. J. Leifer. A Proximity Metric For Continuum Path Planning. Proc. of Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, 1096–1102, 1985.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    S. Cameron and R. K. Culley. Determining the minimum translational distance between two convex polyhedra. Proceedings of International Coriference on Robotics and Automation, pages 591–596, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    S. Frisken, R. Perry, A. Rockwood, and T. Jones”, Adaptively sampled distance fields: a general representation of shapes for computer graphics. Proc. of ACM SIGGRAPH, pages 249–254, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    P. G. Ciarlet and J. L. Lions, editors. HANDBOOK OF NUMERICAL ANALYSIS, volume I-VI. Elsevier Science B.V., 1994.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. Cohen, M. Lin, D. Manocha, and M. Ponamgi. I-collide: An interactive and exact collision detection system for large-scale environments. In Proc. of ACM Interactive 3D Graphics Conference, pages 189–196, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    D. Dobkin, J. Hershberger, D. Kirkpatrick, and S. Suri. Computing the intersection-depth of polyhedra. Algorithmica, 9:518–533, 1993.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    S. F. Gibson and B. Mirtich. A survey of deformable modeling in computer graphics. Technical Report Technical Report, Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratory, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    E.G. Gilbert and C.J. Ong. New distances for the separation and penetration of objects. In Proceedings of International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 579–586, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Leonidas J. Guibas and J. Stolfi. Ruler, compass and computer: the design and analysis of geometric algorithms. In R. A. Earnshaw, editor, Theoretical Foundations of Computer Graphics and CAD, volume 40 of NATO ASI Series F, pages 111–165. Springer-Verlag, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    G. Hirota, S. Fisher, and M. C. Lin. Simulation of nonpenetrating elastic bodies using distance field. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, University of North Carolina, 2000.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    K. Hoff, T. Culver, J. Keyser, M. Lin, and D. Manocha. Fast computation of generalized voronoi diagrams using graphics hardware. Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 1999, pages 277–286, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    K. Hoff, A. Zaferakis, M. C. Lin, and D. Manocha. Fast and simple geometric proximity queries using graphics hardware. Proc. of ACM Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, 2001.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    M. Hughes, C. Dimattia, M. Lin, and D. Manocha. Efficient and accurate interference detection for polynomial deformation and soft object animation. In Proceedings of Computer Animation, pages 155–166, Geneva, Switzerland, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    K. Sridharan, H. E. Stephanou, K. C. Craig and S. S. Keerthi Distance measures on intersecting objects and their applications. In Infonnation Processing Letters, Vol. 51, Aug. 1994, pp. 181–188.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    R. Kimmel, A. Amir, and A. M. Bruckstein. Finding shortest paths on surfaces using level sets propagation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 17 (1), 1995.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    D.L. Marcum and N.P. Weatherill. Unstructured grid generation using iterative point insertion and local reconnection. AIAA Journal, 33(9), September 1995.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    S. J. Osher and J. A. SEthian. Fronts propagating with curvature dependent speed: Algorithms based on harniltonjacobi formulations. J. of Comp., Phys., 1988.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    J. A. Sethian. Level Set Methods and Fast Marching Methods: Evolving Interfaces in Computational Geometry, Fluid Mechanics, Computer Vision, and Materials Science. Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    A. Wilson, E. Larsen, D. Manocha, and M. C. Lin. Partitioning and handling massive models for interactive collision detection. Computer Graphics Forum (Proc. of Eurographics), 18(3):319–329, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Fisher
    • 1
  • Ming C. Lin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations