Hubbry Logo
Solid modelingSolid modelingMain
Open search
Solid modeling
Community hub
Solid modeling
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Solid modeling
Solid modeling
Solid modeling
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The geometry in solid modeling is fully described in 3‑D space; objects can be viewed from any angle.

Solid modeling (or solid modelling) is a consistent set of principles for mathematical and computer modeling of three-dimensional shapes (solids). Solid modeling is distinguished within the broader related areas of geometric modeling and computer graphics, such as 3D modeling, by its emphasis on physical fidelity.[1] Together, the principles of geometric and solid modeling form the foundation of 3D-computer-aided design, and in general, support the creation, exchange, visualization, animation, interrogation, and annotation of digital models of physical objects.

Overview

[edit]

The use of solid modeling techniques allows for the automation process of several difficult engineering calculations that are carried out as a part of the design process. Simulation, planning, and verification of processes such as machining and assembly were one of the main catalysts for the development of solid modeling. More recently, the range of supported manufacturing applications has been greatly expanded to include sheet metal manufacturing, injection molding, welding, pipe routing, etc. Beyond traditional manufacturing, solid modeling techniques serve as the foundation for rapid prototyping, digital data archival and reverse engineering by reconstructing solids from sampled points on physical objects, mechanical analysis using finite elements, motion planning and NC path verification, kinematic and dynamic analysis of mechanisms, and so on. A central problem in all these applications is the ability to effectively represent and manipulate three-dimensional geometry in a fashion that is consistent with the physical behavior of real artifacts. Solid modeling research and development has effectively addressed many of these issues, and continues to be a central focus of computer-aided engineering.

Mathematical foundations

[edit]

The notion of solid modeling as practised today relies on the specific need for informational completeness in mechanical geometric modeling systems, in the sense that any computer model should support all geometric queries that may be asked of its corresponding physical object. The requirement implicitly recognizes the possibility of several computer representations of the same physical object as long as any two such representations are consistent. It is impossible to computationally verify informational completeness of a representation unless the notion of a physical object is defined in terms of computable mathematical properties and independent of any particular representation. Such reasoning led to the development of the modeling paradigm that has shaped the field of solid modeling as we know it today.[2]

All manufactured components have finite size and well behaved boundaries, so initially the focus was on mathematically modeling rigid parts made of homogeneous isotropic material that could be added or removed. These postulated properties can be translated into properties of regions, subsets of three-dimensional Euclidean space. The two common approaches to define "solidity" rely on point-set topology and algebraic topology respectively. Both models specify how solids can be built from simple pieces or cells.

Regularization of a 2D set by taking the closure of its interior

According to the continuum point-set model of solidity, all the points of any X ⊂ can be classified according to their neighborhoods with respect to X as interior, exterior, or boundary points. Assuming is endowed with the typical Euclidean metric, a neighborhood of a point p ∈X takes the form of an open ball. For X to be considered solid, every neighborhood of any p ∈X must be consistently three dimensional; points with lower-dimensional neighborhoods indicate a lack of solidity. Dimensional homogeneity of neighborhoods is guaranteed for the class of closed regular sets, defined as sets equal to the closure of their interior. Any X ⊂ can be turned into a closed regular set or "regularized" by taking the closure of its interior, and thus the modeling space of solids is mathematically defined to be the space of closed regular subsets of (by the Heine-Borel theorem it is implied that all solids are compact sets). In addition, solids are required to be closed under the Boolean operations of set union, intersection, and difference (to guarantee solidity after material addition and removal). Applying the standard Boolean operations to closed regular sets may not produce a closed regular set, but this problem can be solved by regularizing the result of applying the standard Boolean operations.[3] The regularized set operations are denoted ∪∗, ∩∗, and −∗.

The combinatorial characterization of a set X ⊂ as a solid involves representing X as an orientable cell complex so that the cells provide finite spatial addresses for points in an otherwise innumerable continuum.[1] The class of semi-analytic bounded subsets of Euclidean space is closed under Boolean operations (standard and regularized) and exhibits the additional property that every semi-analytic set can be stratified into a collection of disjoint cells of dimensions 0,1,2,3. A triangulation of a semi-analytic set into a collection of points, line segments, triangular faces, and tetrahedral elements is an example of a stratification that is commonly used. The combinatorial model of solidity is then summarized by saying that in addition to being semi-analytic bounded subsets, solids are three-dimensional topological polyhedra, specifically three-dimensional orientable manifolds with boundary.[4] In particular this implies the Euler characteristic of the combinatorial boundary[5] of the polyhedron is 2. The combinatorial manifold model of solidity also guarantees the boundary of a solid separates space into exactly two components as a consequence of the Jordan-Brouwer theorem, thus eliminating sets with non-manifold neighborhoods that are deemed impossible to manufacture.

The point-set and combinatorial models of solids are entirely consistent with each other, can be used interchangeably, relying on continuum or combinatorial properties as needed, and can be extended to n dimensions. The key property that facilitates this consistency is that the class of closed regular subsets of coincides precisely with homogeneously n-dimensional topological polyhedra. Therefore, every n-dimensional solid may be unambiguously represented by its boundary and the boundary has the combinatorial structure of an n−1-dimensional polyhedron having homogeneously n−1-dimensional neighborhoods.

Solid representation schemes

[edit]

Based on assumed mathematical properties, any scheme of representing solids is a method for capturing information about the class of semi-analytic subsets of Euclidean space. This means all representations are different ways of organizing the same geometric and topological data in the form of a data structure. All representation schemes are organized in terms of a finite number of operations on a set of primitives. Therefore, the modeling space of any particular representation is finite, and any single representation scheme may not completely suffice to represent all types of solids. For example, solids defined via combinations of regularized Boolean operations cannot necessarily be represented as the sweep of a primitive moving according to a space trajectory, except in very simple cases. This forces modern geometric modeling systems to maintain several representation schemes of solids and also facilitate efficient conversion between representation schemes.

Below is a list of techniques used to create or represent solid models.[4] Modern modeling software may use a combination of these schemes to represent a solid.

Primitive instancing

[edit]

This scheme is based on notion of families of object, each member of a family distinguishable from the other by a few parameters. Each object family is called a generic primitive, and individual objects within a family are called primitive instances. For example, a family of bolts is a generic primitive, and a single bolt specified by a particular set of parameters is a primitive instance. The distinguishing characteristic of pure parameterized instancing schemes is the lack of means for combining instances to create new structures which represent new and more complex objects. The other main drawback of this scheme is the difficulty of writing algorithms for computing properties of represented solids. A considerable amount of family-specific information must be built into the algorithms and therefore each generic primitive must be treated as a special case, allowing no uniform overall treatment.

Spatial occupancy enumeration

[edit]

This scheme is essentially a list of spatial cells occupied by the solid. The cells, also called voxels are cubes of a fixed size and are arranged in a fixed spatial grid (other polyhedral arrangements are also possible but cubes are the simplest). Each cell may be represented by the coordinates of a single point, such as the cell's centroid. Usually a specific scanning order is imposed and the corresponding ordered set of coordinates is called a spatial array. Spatial arrays are unambiguous and unique solid representations but are too verbose for use as 'master' or definitional representations. They can, however, represent coarse approximations of parts and can be used to improve the performance of geometric algorithms, especially when used in conjunction with other representations such as constructive solid geometry.

Cell decomposition

[edit]

This scheme follows from the combinatoric (algebraic topological) descriptions of solids detailed above. A solid can be represented by its decomposition into several cells. Spatial occupancy enumeration schemes are a particular case of cell decompositions where all the cells are cubical and lie in a regular grid. Cell decompositions provide convenient ways for computing certain topological properties of solids such as its connectedness (number of pieces) and genus (number of holes). Cell decompositions in the form of triangulations are the representations used in 3D finite elements for the numerical solution of partial differential equations. Other cell decompositions such as a Whitney regular stratification or Morse decompositions may be used for applications in robot motion planning.[6]

Surface mesh modeling

[edit]

Similar to boundary representation, the surface of the object is represented. However, rather than complex data structures and NURBS, a simple surface mesh of vertices and edges is used. Surface meshes can be structured (as in triangular meshes in STL files or quad meshes with horizontal and vertical rings of quadrilaterals), or unstructured meshes with randomly grouped triangles and higher level polygons.

Constructive solid geometry

[edit]
Main article: Constructive Solid Geometry

Constructive solid geometry (CSG) is a family of schemes for representing rigid solids as Boolean constructions or combinations of primitives via the regularized set operations discussed above. CSG and boundary representations are currently the most important representation schemes for solids. CSG representations take the form of ordered binary trees where non-terminal nodes represent either rigid transformations (orientation preserving isometries) or regularized set operations. Terminal nodes are primitive leaves that represent closed regular sets. The semantics of CSG representations is clear. Each subtree represents a set resulting from applying the indicated transformations/regularized set operations on the set represented by the primitive leaves of the subtree. CSG representations are particularly useful for capturing design intent in the form of features corresponding to material addition or removal (bosses, holes, pockets etc.). The attractive properties of CSG include conciseness, guaranteed validity of solids, computationally convenient Boolean algebraic properties, and natural control of a solid's shape in terms of high level parameters defining the solid's primitives and their positions and orientations. The relatively simple data structure and elegant recursive algorithms[7] have further contributed to the popularity of CSG.

Sweeping

[edit]

The basic notion embodied in sweeping schemes is simple. A set moving through space may trace or sweep out volume (a solid) that may be represented by the moving set and its trajectory. Such a representation is important in the context of applications such as detecting the material removed from a cutter as it moves along a specified trajectory, computing dynamic interference of two solids undergoing relative motion, motion planning, and even in computer graphics applications such as tracing the motions of a brush moved on a canvas. Most commercial CAD systems provide (limited) functionality for constructing swept solids mostly in the form of a two dimensional cross section moving on a space trajectory transversal to the section. However, current research has shown several approximations of three dimensional shapes moving across one parameter, and even multi-parameter motions.

Implicit representation

[edit]
Main article: Function representation

A very general method of defining a set of points X is to specify a predicate that can be evaluated at any point in space. In other words, X is defined implicitly to consist of all the points that satisfy the condition specified by the predicate. The simplest form of a predicate is the condition on the sign of a real valued function resulting in the familiar representation of sets by equalities and inequalities. For example, if the conditions , , and represent, respectively, a plane and two open linear halfspaces. More complex functional primitives may be defined by Boolean combinations of simpler predicates. Furthermore, the theory of R-functions allow conversions of such representations into a single function inequality for any closed semi analytic set. Such a representation can be converted to a boundary representation using polygonization algorithms, for example, the marching cubes algorithm.

Parametric and feature-based modeling

[edit]

Features are defined to be parametric shapes associated with attributes such as intrinsic geometric parameters (length, width, depth etc.), position and orientation, geometric tolerances, material properties, and references to other features.[8] Features also provide access to related production processes and resource models. Thus, features have a semantically higher level than primitive closed regular sets. Features are generally expected to form a basis for linking CAD with downstream manufacturing applications, and also for organizing databases for design data reuse. Parametric feature based modeling is frequently combined with constructive binary solid geometry (CSG) to fully describe systems of complex objects in engineering.

History of solid modelers

[edit]

The historical development of solid modelers has to be seen in context of the whole history of CAD, the key milestones being the development of the research system BUILD followed by its commercial spin-off Romulus which went on to influence the development of Parasolid, ACIS and Solid Modeling Solutions. One of the first CAD developers in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), ASCON began internal development of its own solid modeler in the 1990s.[9] In November 2012, the mathematical division of ASCON became a separate company, and was named C3D Labs. It was assigned the task of developing the C3D geometric modeling kernel as a standalone product – the only commercial 3D modeling kernel from Russia.[10] Other contributions came from Mäntylä, with his GWB and from the GPM project which contributed, among other things, hybrid modeling techniques at the beginning of the 1980s. This is also when the Programming Language of Solid Modeling PLaSM was conceived at the University of Rome.

Computer-aided design

[edit]
Main article: Computer-aided design

The modeling of solids is only the minimum requirement of a CAD system's capabilities. Solid modelers have become commonplace in engineering departments in the last ten years[when?] due to faster computers and competitive software pricing. Solid modeling software creates a virtual 3D representation of components for machine design and analysis.[11] A typical graphical user interface includes programmable macros, keyboard shortcuts and dynamic model manipulation. The ability to dynamically re-orient the model, in real-time shaded 3-D, is emphasized and helps the designer maintain a mental 3-D image.

A solid part model generally consists of a group of features, added one at a time, until the model is complete. Engineering solid models are built mostly with sketcher-based features; 2-D sketches that are swept along a path to become 3-D. These may be cuts, or extrusions for example. Design work on components is usually done within the context of the whole product using assembly modeling methods. An assembly model incorporates references to individual part models that comprise the product.[12]

Another type of modeling technique is 'surfacing' (Freeform surface modeling). Here, surfaces are defined, trimmed and merged, and filled to make solid. The surfaces are usually defined with datum curves in space and a variety of complex commands. Surfacing is more difficult, but better applicable to some manufacturing techniques, like injection molding. Solid models for injection molded parts usually have both surfacing and sketcher based features.

Engineering drawings can be created semi-automatically and reference the solid models.

Parametric modeling

[edit]

Parametric modeling uses parameters to define a model (dimensions, for example). Examples of parameters are: dimensions used to create model features, material density, formulas to describe swept features, imported data (that describe a reference surface, for example). The parameter may be modified later, and the model will update to reflect the modification. Typically, there is a relationship between parts, assemblies, and drawings. A part consists of multiple features, and an assembly consists of multiple parts. Drawings can be made from either parts or assemblies.

Example: A shaft is created by extruding a circle 100 mm. A hub is assembled to the end of the shaft. Later, the shaft is modified to be 200 mm long (click on the shaft, select the length dimension, modify to 200). When the model is updated the shaft will be 200 mm long, the hub will relocate to the end of the shaft to which it was assembled, and the engineering drawings and mass properties will reflect all changes automatically.

Related to parameters, but slightly different, are constraints. Constraints are relationships between entities that make up a particular shape. For a window, the sides might be defined as being parallel, and of the same length. Parametric modeling is obvious and intuitive. But for the first three decades of CAD this was not the case. Modification meant re-draw, or add a new cut or protrusion on top of old ones. Dimensions on engineering drawings were created, instead of shown. Parametric modeling is very powerful, but requires more skill in model creation. A complicated model for an injection molded part may have a thousand features, and modifying an early feature may cause later features to fail. Skillfully created parametric models are easier to maintain and modify. Parametric modeling also lends itself to data re-use. A whole family of capscrews can be contained in one model, for example.

Medical solid modeling

[edit]

Modern computed axial tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scanners can be used to create solid models of internal body features called voxel-based models, with images generated using volume rendering. Optical 3D scanners can be used to create point clouds or polygon mesh models of external body features.

Uses of medical solid modeling;

  • Visualization
  • Visualization of specific body tissues (just blood vessels and tumor, for example)
  • Designing prosthetics, orthotics, and other medical and dental devices (this is sometimes called mass customization)
  • Creating polygon mesh models for rapid prototyping (to aid surgeons preparing for difficult surgeries, for example)
  • Combining polygon mesh models with CAD solid modeling (design of hip replacement parts, for example)
  • Computational analysis of complex biological processes, e.g. air flow, blood flow
  • Computational simulation of new medical devices and implants in vivo

If the use goes beyond visualization of the scan data, processes like image segmentation and image-based meshing will be necessary to generate an accurate and realistic geometrical description of the scan data.

Engineering

[edit]
Main article: Computer-aided engineering
Property window outlining the mass properties of a model in Cobalt
Mass properties window of a model in Cobalt

Because CAD programs running on computers "understand" the true geometry comprising complex shapes, many attributes of/for a 3‑D solid, such as its center of gravity, volume, and mass, can be quickly calculated. For instance, the cube with rounded edges shown at the top of this article measures 8.4 mm from flat to flat. Despite its many radii and the shallow pyramid on each of its six faces, its properties are readily calculated for the designer, as shown in the screenshot at right.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Solid modeling

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Solid modeling is a technique in (CAD) for creating precise, three-dimensional representations of solid objects that include both geometric and topological information, enabling unambiguous descriptions suitable for and . It uses mathematical models based on to define objects with physical properties such as volume, mass, and , distinguishing it from simpler wireframe or surface modeling approaches. The field emerged in the 1970s through pioneering work at the , where researchers Aristides A. G. Requicha and Herbert B. Voelcker developed foundational principles for representing rigid solids in a computer environment as part of the Production Automation Project. Their efforts, detailed in influential publications like the 1982 IEEE paper "Solid Modeling: A Historical Summary and Contemporary Assessment," established solid modeling as a rigorous discipline grounded in , , and to ensure models are valid, bounded, and closed under operations. By the , solid modeling transitioned from research prototypes to commercial CAD systems, revolutionizing industries like —exemplified by the , the first passenger aircraft fully designed using solid models. Two primary representation schemes dominate solid modeling: , which defines objects via their surface boundaries composed of faces, edges, and vertices with associated ; and , which builds complex shapes by applying operations (union, intersection, difference) to primitive solids like cubes, cylinders, and spheres. These methods, dating back to the 1970s, support parametric modeling where dimensions can be adjusted via variables, and they rely on robust geometry kernels such as or for computational accuracy. Advanced techniques also incorporate NURBS (non-uniform rational B-splines) for curved surfaces and voxel-based or representations for complex organic forms. Solid modeling underpins key applications in , digital prototyping, finite element analysis (FEA), and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM), allowing for interference checks, stress simulations, and automated toolpath generation. Its integration with modern software like and has driven innovations in additive manufacturing, robotics, and , while ongoing research addresses challenges in handling non-manifold geometry and real-time rendering for large assemblies; as of 2025, AI-assisted features in tools like enhance and automation.

Core Concepts

Overview of Solid Modeling

Solid modeling is a computational technique for representing three-dimensional objects that unambiguously defines their volume, interior, boundary, and exterior, ensuring the models are watertight and faithful to physical solids. This approach treats solids as bounded regular sets in three-dimensional space, where the interior consists of an open set of points, the boundary forms a closed surface separating interior from exterior, and the entire solid is the closure of its interior. Such representations support algorithmic point membership classification, determining whether any given point lies inside, outside, or on the boundary of the object. In contrast to wireframe modeling, which captures only edges and vertices without volumetric information, and surface modeling, which describes boundaries but omits interior details, solid modeling integrates (element connectivity), (precise spatial forms), and completeness (no gaps or overlaps). This holistic inclusion allows for robust handling of object integrity, avoiding ambiguities that could arise in less comprehensive schemes. Core requirements for valid solid models include manifold , ensuring surfaces connect without self-intersections and edges adjoin exactly two faces; orientable surfaces with consistent outward normals; and closure, bounding a finite, enclosed region. These properties guarantee the model corresponds to a with well-defined occupancy. The unambiguous nature of solid models facilitates downstream applications in , such as generating cutter paths for parts from primitives like cubes or cylinders, and in , such as finite element simulations for structural . Principal benefits encompass exact mathematical precision for high-fidelity designs, seamless support for operations (union, , difference) to build complex assemblies, and reliable computation of mass properties including , surface area, and moments of inertia. Various schemes, including and , realize these attributes in practice.

Mathematical Foundations

Solid modeling relies on a set-theoretic foundation where solid objects are represented as subsets of Euclidean 3-space, denoted R3\mathbb{R}^3. In point-set , a SS is defined as a closed and with a non-empty interior, ensuring it corresponds to a physically realizable object with well-defined volume and boundary. This formulation, known as regular closed sets, guarantees topological regularity by excluding sets with "holes" in their boundary or isolated points, which is crucial for unambiguous computational manipulation. Topological concepts underpin the validity and classification of solids in modeling systems. A solid's boundary is typically a 2-manifold, a surface that locally resembles a plane without self-intersections or singularities, allowing consistent orientation and traversal. For polyhedral approximations of solids, the χ=V−E+F\chi = V - E + F, where VV is the number of vertices, EE edges, and FF faces, provides a topological invariant that classifies surface complexity; for a simply connected closed surface like a sphere, χ=2\chi = 2. The genus gg, related to χ\chi by χ=2−2g\chi = 2 - 2g for orientable surfaces, quantifies the number of "handles" or toroidal voids, aiding in the detection of invalid topologies such as self-intersecting boundaries. Geometric primitives form the building blocks for constructing solid boundaries. Points are basic elements in R3\mathbb{R}^3, while curves are often parameterized, such as Bézier curves defined by C(t)=∑i=0nBin(t)PiC(t) = \sum_{i=0}^n B_i^n(t) P_i for t∈[0,1]t \in [0,1], where Bin(t)B_i^n(t) are polynomials and PiP_i control points, enabling smooth interpolation. Surfaces extend this to two parameters, with non-uniform rational s (NURBS) providing a versatile representation: S(u,v)=∑i=0m∑j=0nNi,p(u)Nj,q(v)wi,jPi,j∑i=0m∑j=0nNi,p(u)Nj,q(v)wi,j,\mathbf{S}(u,v) = \frac{\sum_{i=0}^m \sum_{j=0}^n N_{i,p}(u) N_{j,q}(v) w_{i,j} \mathbf{P}_{i,j}}{\sum_{i=0}^m \sum_{j=0}^n N_{i,p}(u) N_{j,q}(v) w_{i,j}}, where Ni,pN_{i,p} and Nj,qN_{j,q} are basis functions of degrees pp and qq, Pi,j\mathbf{P}_{i,j} control points, and wi,jw_{i,j} weights, allowing exact representation of conics and flexibility for free-form shapes. The boundary evaluation of a solid SS involves the operator ∂S\partial S, which extracts the 2-manifold surface enclosing the solid's interior, ensuring no self-intersections and proper adjacency of faces, edges, and vertices. This operator maintains topological , where ∂S\partial S must be orientable and divide R3\mathbb{R}^3 into interior and exterior regions consistently. Boolean operations on solids draw from , enabling composition via union S1∪S2S_1 \cup S_2, S1∩S2S_1 \cap S_2, and difference S1∖S2S_1 \setminus S_2. These preserve regularity under certain conditions, such as non-degenerate primitives. Volume calculations leverage the inclusion-exclusion : vol(S1∪S2)=vol(S1)+vol(S2)−vol(S1∩S2)\mathrm{vol}(S_1 \cup S_2) = \mathrm{vol}(S_1) + \mathrm{vol}(S_2) - \mathrm{vol}(S_1 \cap S_2), facilitating efficient property inheritance in hierarchical models. Tolerance and discretization issues arise from finite-precision arithmetic in , where floating-point representations introduce errors in curve-surface intersections or merges. Geometric tolerancing formalizes allowable deviations, treating as offset zones around ideal geometries to ensure robustness against numerical , such as small gaps or overlaps in boundary representations.

Representation Methods

Primitive Instancing

Primitive instancing represents solids in solid modeling by creating instances of a predefined set of basic geometric primitives, such as blocks, cylinders, spheres, cones, and tori, each parameterized by attributes like dimensions, position, and orientation. These primitives are generic families that can be instantiated multiple times with specific parameter values to form the solid object, without employing Boolean operations for combination. For example, a family of prisms might be defined as ('PRISM', N, R, H), where N is the number of sides, R the radius, and H the height, allowing instantiation of various polygonal prisms. The for primitive instancing typically consists of a hierarchical of instances, where each node specifies a primitive type along with its parameters for size, position, and orientation, often using matrices to apply motions. A T can be represented as (Rt01)\begin{pmatrix} R & t \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}, where R is the and t the vector, enabling precise placement of in 3D . This structure supports parametric designs by allowing easy modification of parameters to regenerate the model. An illustrative example is modeling a bolt from a generic bolt primitive family defined by ('BOLT', H, D), where H is the height and D the diameter, instancing a single bolt with specific values for these parameters. This representation offers advantages including compact storage due to the concise tuple-based encoding of instances, unambiguous and unique descriptions that facilitate validation, and ease of for parametric variations, making it suitable for applications like part libraries in . It also enables fast rendering and for simple geometries, as algorithms can leverage the predefined primitive shapes. However, primitive instancing is limited to relatively simple shapes within a restricted catalog of primitive families, lacking the ability to represent complex topologies or interconnected structures without additional extensions, and requiring domain-specific knowledge for property s. Historically, primitive instancing emerged from manufacturing contexts, particularly Group Technology approaches in the , where standardized part families were used to streamline production, as seen in early systems supporting parametric primitives for basic components. It relies on affine transformations from geometric foundations and serves as a building block for more advanced feature-based modeling.

Spatial Occupancy Enumeration

Spatial occupancy enumeration represents solids by discretizing into a of cells, such as voxels, where each cell is marked as either occupied (typically denoted as 1) or empty (0) to indicate whether it belongs to the solid object. This approach approximates the solid's volume through a binary grid, enabling the modeling of complex geometries without explicit boundary definitions. It is particularly suited for applications requiring volumetric analysis, as the occupancy data directly encodes the interior and exterior of the object. Common data structures for spatial occupancy enumeration include uniform grids, implemented as 3D arrays of binary values, and hierarchical variants like octrees. In a uniform grid, space is partitioned into equal-sized cubic voxels arranged in a regular lattice, providing straightforward indexing but requiring storage proportional to the total volume. Octrees, introduced as a hierarchical subdivision method, recursively divide space into eight child cubes (octants) only where necessary, with each node representing a cubic volume labeled as full (occupied), empty, or partial (requiring further subdivision). This structure uses an 8-ary tree to achieve compactness, with the number of nodes scaling linearly with surface area times the inverse square of resolution, making it more memory-efficient for sparse or detailed models. Key algorithms leverage the discrete grid for operations such as rendering and analysis. Ray marching traverses rays through the grid to determine intersections and visibility, enabling efficient hidden surface removal in linear time relative to the number of nodes encountered. Flood-fill algorithms assess connectivity by propagating from a to label all 6-connected (face-adjacent) occupied cells, useful for identifying enclosed voids or components within the solid. Accuracy depends on resolution, with surface on the order of the voxel size δ, as finer grids reduce stair-stepping but increase computational demands. This representation excels in handling arbitrary topologies without topological constraints and facilitates efficient volume computations, such as integrating values to estimate or other integral properties. For instance, the total of a can be computed by summing the volumes of occupied voxels or full nodes during a . However, it is memory-intensive at high resolutions, as storage grows cubically with refinement in uniform grids, and hierarchical structures can still expand significantly for intricate surfaces. Additionally, discrete approximations introduce and stair-stepping artifacts on curved surfaces, limiting precision for smooth geometries. A practical example is the reconstruction of bone structures from medical computed tomography (CT) scans, where the image data forms a voxel grid with intensity values thresholded to binary occupancy—high densities indicate occupied bone voxels, while lower values mark empty space—enabling solid models for surgical planning or density analysis.

Cell Decomposition

Cell decomposition represents solids in solid modeling by partitioning 3D space into non-overlapping, convex cells—such as polyhedra or simplices—that collectively form the solid through union operations, ensuring exact boundary alignment without approximations. These cells arise from the arrangement of bounding planes or surfaces, where each cell is a maximal connected region bounded by portions of these elements. This method provides a volumetric description that captures both interior and boundary information precisely. Data structures for cell decomposition typically employ cellular complexes, consisting of 0D vertices, 1D edges, 2D faces, and 3D volumes, with each cell individually parameterized and storing attributes like material properties or labels indicating solid membership. In decompositions derived from (CSG), cells are classified based on set membership classification relative to , forming a hierarchical or adjacency-based structure for efficient traversal. Such representations generalize simpler triangulations by allowing cells with arbitrary topologies while maintaining validity through regularized combinations. Construction algorithms compute the by determining all among the defining planes or surfaces, producing up to O(n²) cells for n planes through incremental addition and detection; adjacent cells sharing faces are then merged using union-find techniques to eliminate redundancies and assemble the final . These processes ensure topological consistency, often leveraging boundary-conforming subdivisions like trees for polyhedral cases. A key advantage of cell decomposition is its support for exact operations, as unions and differences can be performed by relabeling cells without geometric reconstruction, facilitating robust finite element meshing for simulations while preserving topological properties like connectivity and voids. However, a significant limitation is the in the number of cells as the complexity of input surfaces increases, leading to high storage and computational demands that scale poorly for intricate models. For instance, decomposing a machined mechanical part into cells allows overlap-free volumetric for stress simulations, where each represents a uniform region aligned with the part's boundaries.

Boundary Representation

Boundary representation (B-Rep) is a method for defining solid objects by explicitly modeling their bounding surfaces, where the interconnects faces, edges, and vertices to ensure a complete and consistent enclosure of the solid's volume. This approach treats the solid as a manifold boundary, distinguishing interior from exterior through oriented surface elements that satisfy closure and non-self-intersection properties. The data structures supporting B-Rep typically employ graph-based topologies to link geometric primitives efficiently. Common variants include the winged-edge structure, which organizes edges with pointers to adjacent faces and vertices for traversal; the half-edge structure, which splits edges into directed pairs to represent boundary loops; and the radial-edge structure for handling non-manifold topologies. These structures enforce validity through the Euler formula, V−E+F=2V - E + F = 2, where VV is the number of vertices, EE the number of edges, and FF the number of faces, applicable to simply connected solids without holes or disconnected components. Euler operators, such as make vertex/edge/face or kill vertex/edge/face, maintain this relation during modifications to preserve topological integrity. Geometric elements in B-Rep consist of faces bounded by edge loops, edges defined as parametric curves such as lines, arcs, or conics, and vertices as intersection points of edges with associated 3D coordinates. Faces are commonly represented as bounded surface patches, including planar facets or higher-order surfaces like trimmed NURBS (Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines) for smooth continuity. The ensures that each edge is shared by exactly two faces in a manifold solid, with orientation conventions (e.g., ) defining inward or outward normals. Key algorithms in B-Rep include boundary evaluation to convert (CSG) trees into explicit surface models, involving classification of primitive surfaces and intersection curve generation followed by merging and trimming operations. Loop detection algorithms identify closed edge cycles to validate manifold boundaries and detect non-manifold conditions, such as edges incident to more than two faces. Tolerance handling addresses numerical issues in coincident geometry by using epsilon thresholds for intersection computations and regularization to resolve degeneracies like slit edges or overlapping faces. B-Rep offers advantages in intuitive visualization, as the explicit surfaces facilitate rendering and without volumetric traversal, and in applications, where boundary data directly supports toolpath generation. It also enables feature recognition by analyzing topological patterns, such as cylindrical holes or fillets, for downstream processes like assembly planning. However, B-Rep is sensitive to numerical errors in curve-surface intersections, potentially leading to gaps or overlaps that violate closure. Boolean operations require complex regularization to maintain validity, as unprocessed intersections can produce invalid topologies, making them computationally intensive compared to procedural representations. An example is an automotive body panel, modeled as a collection of B-Rep faces—such as doubly curved NURBS patches—connected along edges with C1C^1 continuity to ensure smooth transitions without creases.

Constructive Solid Geometry

Constructive Solid Geometry (CSG) represents solid objects as hierarchical combinations of primitive solids using set operations, such as union, , and difference, to build complex geometries from simpler building blocks. This approach treats solids as expressions in a set-theoretic framework, where primitives serve as the leaves of the structure and operators define how they are combined to form the final object. Primitives typically include basic shapes like blocks, cylinders, spheres, and cones, which can be instanced and transformed. The core for CSG is a , with leaf nodes representing primitive solids and internal nodes denoting Boolean operators; to optimize storage and computation by sharing common subexpressions, this tree is often generalized to a (DAG). Evaluation of the CSG structure for rendering, intersection testing, or analysis involves traversing the tree or DAG and computing a (B-Rep) by applying the operators recursively, which generates the explicit surface boundaries of the resulting solid. Algorithms for executing Boolean operations in CSG rely on classifying elements of one solid relative to another—determining whether points, edges, or faces lie inside, outside, or on the boundary—and then clipping and recombining these elements to form the new boundaries. For polyhedral primitives, this classification can use ray-casting from representative points like polygon barycenters, followed by subdivision to resolve intersections and selection of portions based on operator type (e.g., retaining outside portions for union). These methods extend 2D polygon clipping techniques to handle 3D face intersections during the evaluation process. CSG offers advantages in compactness for representing intricate assemblies, as the tree or DAG captures procedural construction history with minimal data, and maintains exact representations without numerical discretization errors inherent in voxel-based methods. However, evaluating the structure to extract boundaries is computationally expensive, particularly for deep trees or complex primitives, and modifying the model after initial construction is difficult because changes propagate through the operator hierarchy. A practical example is modeling an : start with a rectangular block primitive as the base, union it with extruded primitives for mounting flanges and ports, then subtract cylindrical primitives for bore holes using difference operations to create the final cavities—all encoded in a CSG tree that defines the assembly hierarchically. The resulting solid SS is expressed as a nested application of operators on : S=\op1(P1,\op2(P2,… ))S = \op_1 \left( P_1, \op_2 \left( P_2, \dots \right) \right) where each PiP_i is a primitive solid and each \opj\op_j is a Boolean function (union ∪\cup, intersection ∩\cap, or difference ∖\setminus).

Sweeping Methods

Sweeping methods in solid modeling generate three-dimensional solids by translating or transforming a two-dimensional profile along a specified path, producing volumes such as extrusions via linear sweeps, solids of revolution through circular paths, or more complex forms via general lofting of a cross-section curve along a curved trajectory. This representation captures the union of all positions occupied by the profile during the motion, providing a procedural description of the solid that aligns with manufacturing processes like milling or turning. The for a sweep typically comprises the profile, defined as a 2D (B-Rep) or parametric ; the path, represented as a 3D such as a ; and control parameters including twist angle for rotational variation or scaling factor to modulate the profile size along the path. These elements enable compact storage and easy modification, often integrated with parametric frameworks where sweeps serve as features. Algorithms for constructing sweep solids begin with skinning to generate the by interpolating the profile along the path, yielding ruled surfaces for linear cases or lofted surfaces for curved paths. Self-intersections, which arise from twisting or sharp path curvatures, are resolved through trimming procedures that detect overlapping regions via intersection curve computation and point membership classification, then excise invalid portions to ensure a valid manifold boundary. Variable radius support is achieved in generalized cylinders, where the cross-section evolves along the spine according to a scaling rule, accommodating tapered or blended forms without uniform . These methods offer advantages in intuitiveness for mechanical part design, such as shafts or ducts, where the motion-based mirrors physical fabrication, and in computational efficiency for ruled surfaces that facilitate rapid tests and visualization. However, they are limited to sweepable topologies that permit continuous deformation without topological changes, and singularities at path endpoints or high-curvature points can introduce degenerate edges or vertices, complicating downstream operations like evaluations. A representative example is pipe modeling, where a circular profile is swept along a spline path to create a flexible conduit ; the surface parameterization is given by P(t,u)=C(u)+t⋅D(u),\mathbf{P}(t,u) = \mathbf{C}(u) + t \cdot \mathbf{D}(u), with t∈[0,1]t \in [0,1] along the path, C(u)\mathbf{C}(u) tracing the profile, and D(u)\mathbf{D}(u) the varying direction vector, enabling smooth bends while maintaining constant or scaled . Variants include boundary sweeps, which apply the motion to existing model boundaries for feature addition in parametric systems, preserving and enabling iterative refinement.

Implicit Representations

Implicit representations in solid modeling define the interior of a solid object through a continuous scalar function f(x)f(\mathbf{x}), where x=(x,y,z)\mathbf{x} = (x, y, z) is a point in 3D , such that f(x)≤0f(\mathbf{x}) \leq 0 for points inside the solid, f(x)=0f(\mathbf{x}) = 0 on the boundary surface, and f(x)>0f(\mathbf{x}) > 0 for points outside. This approach contrasts with explicit boundary definitions by implicitly specifying membership via function evaluation rather than discrete geometric elements. Prominent examples include , which model soft, blended shapes, and level-set methods, which track evolving interfaces as zero-level contours of the function. The data structures for implicit representations typically organize the defining function as a tree of operations or primitive functions, enabling hierarchical and evaluation. For instance, Blinn's blobs use a sum of inverse-distance terms, expressed as f(x)=∑i1ri2+di2f(\mathbf{x}) = \sum_i \frac{1}{r_i^2 + d_i^2}, where rir_i is a base radius for each blob center and did_i is the distance from x\mathbf{x} to the ii-th center, with the surface at a constant threshold. Alternatively, signed distance fields (SDFs) represent the function as the signed to the nearest boundary point, providing information useful for traversal and optimization. Key algorithms for working with implicit representations include isosurface extraction via the method, which samples the function on a grid and generates triangular meshes by interpolating vertices where f(x)=0f(\mathbf{x}) = 0 within each cube. For rendering, ray tracing employs sphere tracing (a form of ), which advances along rays using the distance estimate from the SDF to bound steps and ensure intersection detection without oversampling. Implicit representations offer advantages such as inherent support for smooth blending between without explicit seam handling, straightforward global deformations by modifying the function parameters, and fluid accommodation of changes, like merging or splitting, during operations. However, they face limitations in computing exact intersections or operations, as these require solving nonlinear equations without closed-form solutions, and storing or evaluating complex functions can demand significant computational resources for high-fidelity models. A representative example is modeling a soft blob as the union of using Wyvill et al.'s soft objects function, defined by f(x)=∑ia(1−di2b2)3−Tf(\mathbf{x}) = \sum_i a \left(1 - \frac{d_i^2}{b^2}\right)^3 - T for di<bd_i < b, and 0 otherwise, where did_i is the to the ii-th center, aa is a scaling factor, bb controls the influence radius, and TT is an threshold; the blended shape emerges naturally from the summation exceeding the threshold. Modern extensions leverage neural networks to learn implicit representations, such as DeepSDF, which parameterizes shapes as continuous SDFs via a deep network trained on 3D data for compact, differentiable shape encoding. Post-2020 advances, including on neural SDFs, enable editable, high-quality representations by combining neural fields with traditional operations while preserving properties.

Parametric and Feature-Based Modeling

Parametric and feature-based modeling constructs models as ordered sequences of features, such as extrusions, revolutions, fillets, and chamfers, where each feature is defined by parametric attributes including dimensions, angles, and positions, alongside geometric constraints like dimensional relations and mates that enforce design intent. This approach encapsulates significance within portions of the , mapping specific configurations to generic shapes that represent physical constituents of a part with predictable properties. Features are typically additive, subtractive, or transformative operations applied sequentially to build the , enabling modifications that propagate changes throughout the model while preserving associativity. The underlying organizes these features into a hierarchical feature tree or a (DAG) representing the design history, where each node denotes a feature operation and edges capture dependencies. Upon editing parameters or constraints, the model regenerates by replaying the sequence of operations from the base onward, often leveraging hybrid (CSG) and (B-Rep) schemes to compute the final solid. Key algorithms include variational solving for , which reduces through simultaneous solution of underconstrained geometric equations using matrix-based optimization to minimize variables while satisfying relations between points, lines, and surfaces. Editing mid-history employs mechanisms, such as rollback trees, to temporarily revert to prior states, apply modifications, and re-evaluate downstream features without full regeneration. This methodology offers significant advantages, including the capture of design intent for intuitive edits, strong associativity that automates updates across related components, and support for by facilitating quick parameter-driven iterations and design reuse across product families. However, it suffers from history fragility, where topology changes like feature interactions or invalid constraints can cause regeneration failures and model instability. Additionally, the computational cost escalates for large assemblies due to repeated evaluations of complex dependency chains. A representative example is the modeling of a shaft with a central : the process begins with a base feature defining the shaft's cylindrical profile using parameters for length and , followed by a subtractive feature positioned coaxially and sized by a linked d. Altering d triggers regeneration of the B-Rep kernel to update the hole's boundaries while maintaining associativity with the shaft's surface. Parametric and feature-based modeling integrates atop established B-Rep or CSG kernels to evaluate and render the resulting , ensuring robust solid validation during operations.

Historical Development

Early Research and Theoretical Foundations

The foundations of solid modeling trace back to the early , when interactive emerged as a tool for design. Ivan Sutherland's system, developed in 1963 as part of his MIT doctoral thesis, introduced light-pen-based interaction for creating and manipulating geometric figures on a display, laying groundwork for constraint-based modeling that influenced later 3D representations. Although primarily 2D, 's concepts of hierarchical structures and real-time editing anticipated the need for unambiguous geometric descriptions in three dimensions. The 1970s marked a pivotal shift toward rigorous theoretical frameworks for representing three-dimensional solids, driven by the limitations of wireframe models, which often produced ambiguous interpretations of object interiors and topologies. At the , Ian Braid developed the BUILD system around 1974, pioneering (B-Rep) techniques that explicitly defined solid boundaries using faces, edges, and vertices, supported by Euler operators to maintain topological integrity during modifications. Concurrently, at the , Aristides Requicha and Herbert Voelcker advanced set-theoretic approaches in their Production Automation Project (PAP), introducing (CSG) as a method to combine primitive volumes via operations like union, , and difference, formalized in their 1977 technical memorandum on mathematical models of rigid solids. The Rochester group's PADL system, released in 1977, implemented B-Rep for precise boundary evaluation, enabling unambiguous solid definitions suitable for applications. Requicha's seminal 1977 further solidified the theoretical basis by classifying representation schemes according to criteria like unambiguity, validity, and completeness, emphasizing the need for models that capture both and without interpretive errors inherent in wireframes. Braid's 1974 work on provided a foundational toolkit for manipulating B-Rep structures, ensuring that operations like edge splitting or face merging preserved the (V - E + F = 2 for simply connected polyhedra), thus addressing topological challenges in complex assemblies. These contributions highlighted the role of in handling intersections and unions, where algorithms for curve-curve and surface-surface intersections became essential to resolve overlaps in CSG and B-Rep computations. Standardization efforts in the late 1970s addressed interoperability among emerging systems, culminating in the (IGES) released in 1980 by the U.S. National Bureau of Standards, which defined a neutral format for exchanging wireframe, surface, and early solid between CAD systems while enforcing unambiguity and validity checks to prevent representation errors. Overall, these theoretical advancements resolved key ambiguities in prior modeling paradigms, establishing solid modeling as a robust discipline for precise representation by the early 1980s.

Evolution of Commercial Solid Modelers

The commercialization of solid modeling accelerated in the 1980s as research prototypes transitioned into viable software kernels for industrial use. Shape Data Limited introduced the kernel in 1983, marking one of the earliest commercial (B-Rep) solid modeling systems designed for integration into CAD applications. Concurrently, UniGraphics launched Uni-Solids in 1981, an early solid modeling package based on the PADL-2 kernel that combined (CSG) and B-Rep hybrids to enable precise 3D part creation. These advancements shifted solid modeling from academic environments to mainframe-based workstations, addressing initial challenges in computational efficiency for complex geometries. The 1990s saw significant advancements in parametric and feature-based modeling, making solid modelers more accessible and intuitive for design engineers. Parametric Technology Corporation (PTC) released Pro/ENGINEER in 1987, with its ParametricSolid kernel enabling history-based parametric modeling that allowed modifications to propagate through feature trees, fully maturing into a comprehensive system by the early . In 1995, debuted as the first Windows-native 3D CAD software, leveraging the kernel to popularize feature-based on personal computers, dramatically reducing costs from mainframe-era systems and broadening adoption among small to medium enterprises. A key milestone was the 1994 publication of the STEP () standard, which provided a neutral format for exchanging solid models between disparate CAD systems, facilitating interoperability in manufacturing workflows. By the 2000s, kernels achieved industry dominance, underpinning most commercial CAD platforms. ' , evolved from Shape Data's and released commercially in the late 1980s, became a standard for B-Rep and CSG operations, powering tools like and NX (formerly UniGraphics) for robust handling of assemblies up to thousands of parts. Similarly, Spatial Corporation's kernel, released in 1989 and refined through the decade, established itself as a versatile B-Rep engine used in applications from to , emphasizing precision in surface and volume computations. These kernels addressed evolving challenges, such as transitioning from mainframe to and PC environments, where improved algorithms mitigated performance bottlenecks in rendering and operations. Open-source alternatives emerged in the 2000s, democratizing access to solid modeling technology. Open (OCCT), originally developed as CAS.CADE by Matra Datavision and released as open-source in 1999, provided a free B-Rep and CSG kernel that gained traction for custom CAD development by the mid-2000s. In the 2010s, integration with (BIM) advanced, as seen in Revit's enhanced solid modeling capabilities for parametric building components, enabling seamless data exchange in architectural assemblies. Cloud-based platforms like , founded in 2012, introduced browser-native solid modeling with real-time collaboration, leveraging to handle massive assemblies without local hardware constraints. In the 2020s, solid modeling continued to evolve with (AI) integration for automated design and optimization, as well as improved performance for large assemblies. For instance, 2025 introduced enhancements in meshing, , and AI-driven feature recognition to accelerate product development. Cloud-native tools and GPU acceleration further addressed for assemblies exceeding 10,000 components, enabling real-time collaboration and advanced simulations in industries like and automotive. Throughout this evolution, persistent challenges included scaling for massive assemblies—often exceeding 10,000 components—and optimizing performance from mainframe limitations to modern GPU acceleration, where parallel processing now enables faster ray tracing and simulation previews in tools like NX. These developments solidified commercial modelers as essential for precision, with kernel interoperability via STEP ensuring sustained industry-wide adoption.

Applications

Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing

In (CAD), solid models form the foundational , enabling precise representation of three-dimensional objects that support sketching, assembly modeling, and detailed drawings. These models allow designers to define geometric features such as extrusions, revolutions, and fillets, which can be parametrically adjusted to facilitate processes. Feature-based editing, where modifications to one feature propagate through the model, enhances efficiency in refining complex parts without rebuilding from scratch. This integration is central to modern CAD kernels, as outlined in foundational works on solid modeling techniques. The linkage between CAD and (CAM) relies heavily on solid models to generate toolpaths for processes like (NC) milling. By offsetting boundaries of the solid geometry, CAM software computes safe and efficient paths that account for tool geometry and material removal, transitioning from contouring to full 5-axis for intricate surfaces. , including (GD&T) annotations directly applied to solid features, ensures manufacturability by specifying allowable variations in form, orientation, and location. Kinematic simulations of assemblies, derived from solid interactions, verify motion without physical prototypes, streamlining the from conceptual modeling to production-ready documentation. This CAD/CAM synergy offers significant advantages, including reduced prototyping errors through virtual validation and support for Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DFMA) principles, which minimize part counts and assembly complexity to cut costs by up to 50% in some cases. In , employs models to prepare components for crash simulations by defining accurate material properties and contact interfaces within assemblies. Recent advancements, such as in introduced in the late , optimize geometries using AI-driven constraints like load conditions and manufacturing limits to produce lightweight, high-performance parts.

Medical and Biomedical Modeling

In medical and biomedical modeling, solid modeling techniques are pivotal for reconstructing anatomical structures from imaging data, enabling precise representations of patient-specific geometry. Image-based modeling typically starts with segmentation of MRI or CT scans, where thresholding identifies regions of interest based on intensity values, classifying s into discrete categories such as bone or . The then extracts isosurfaces from these datasets, generating triangular meshes that approximate the boundaries of anatomical features with high resolution. This process, introduced in seminal work on from volumetric data, supports the transition from rasterized images to vector-based solids essential for downstream applications. To achieve editable solid models, these meshes undergo -to-B-Rep conversion, producing watertight, manifold boundary representations that facilitate operations and parametric adjustments while preserving topological integrity. These reconstructed solids underpin key applications in healthcare, particularly for designing custom and surgeries. For instance, prosthetics are modeled by aligning geometries with patient-derived solids, ensuring a tailored fit that minimizes postoperative complications through precise morphometric matching. Surgical leverages simulations on these models to visualize intersections, unions, or subtractions—such as tumor resections or graft placements—allowing surgeons to rehearse procedures virtually and optimize access paths. Feature-based modeling techniques further enhance organ representations by incorporating parametric features like sweeps or blends to capture anatomical hierarchies, such as vascular branching or organ contours, derived from segmented data. Meanwhile, implicit representations excel in simulating deformations, using level-set functions to model nonlinear behaviors under forces like incision or compression, which is crucial for realistic intraoperative predictions. The advantages of solid modeling in this domain include enhanced patient-specific accuracy, reducing operative times and risks compared to generic templates, as well as seamless integration with additive manufacturing to produce tangible prototypes or implants from digital solids. Post-2000 examples illustrate this impact: cranial plate designs for defects use boundary representations to mirror , enabling lightweight meshes that restore and function via . In cardiovascular applications, (CSG) optimizes stent designs by combining primitive shapes through Boolean unions and differences, refining strut angles to improve radial force and minimize restenosis risks during deployment. Despite these benefits, challenges persist in handling heterogeneous materials, where solids must represent varying densities—like cortical versus trabecular —requiring hybrid representations that blend data with multi-material B-Reps to avoid oversimplification. adds complexity, as FDA Class II/III devices demand validation of modeling accuracy through clinical trials and of digital workflows to ensure and performance. These hurdles underscore the need for standardized protocols in solid modeling to balance innovation with safety in biomedical contexts.

Engineering Analysis and Simulation

Solid models serve as the foundational input for engineering analysis and simulation, enabling precise representation of three-dimensional geometries in processes like finite element analysis (FEA), computational fluid dynamics (CFD), and multiphysics simulations. By providing volumetric data through representations such as boundary representation (B-Rep), these models facilitate the of complex structures while maintaining topological integrity, which is essential for accurate prediction of physical behaviors under load, heat, or fluid flow. This direct linkage from to reduces errors associated with geometric approximations and supports iterative refinement in workflows. Preprocessing of solid models for begins with meshing, where the continuous is divided into discrete elements, commonly tetrahedra for irregular B-Rep solids due to their flexibility in conforming to curved surfaces and internal volumes. Defeaturing techniques remove minor geometric details, such as small holes or fillets, to improve mesh quality and computational efficiency without significantly altering the model's overall behavior. Following meshing, material properties—including , , and thermal conductivity—are assigned to the volume elements, ensuring that the simulation reflects the physical characteristics of the solid components. In FEA integration, boundary conditions such as forces, displacements, or temperatures are applied directly to the faces of the solid model, leveraging the precise surface definitions to enforce realistic constraints. Volume integrals over the solid's domain, such as the for dynamic analysis given by I=∭Vρr2 dV,I = \iiint_V \rho r^2 \, dV, are evaluated using numerical quadrature on the meshed elements, enabling computations of mass properties, matrices, and response quantities with to the original geometry. Applications encompass stress analysis to evaluate structural deformations and failure modes, thermal simulations to model heat conduction and convection within solids, and multiphysics coupling to address interactions like fluid-structure or thermo-electro-mechanical effects. These uses allow engineers to predict performance metrics, such as maximum von Mises stress in loaded components or gradients in heat exchangers, directly from the solid model's volumetric data. The primary advantages of using solid models include exact transfer to the analysis stage, which eliminates discretization-induced errors common in approximated surface and yields more accurate stress and strain predictions. Associativity between the design model and simulation setup further ensures that and boundary conditions update automatically upon geometric modifications, accelerating cycles and reducing manual rework. Representative examples include applications where solid models of wings undergo flutter analysis, integrating structural finite elements with aerodynamic pressures to assess aeroelastic stability and prevent vibrational failures during flight. In , solid models of vehicle structures are employed in explicit dynamics simulations of crash events, capturing deformation patterns and energy dissipation in components like using tetrahedral meshes to inform safety enhancements. Commercial tools such as and enable seamless linking to CAD solid models, importing B-Rep data for automated meshing, material assignment, and solver execution within integrated environments. , developed since 2005, represents a by directly utilizing NURBS from solid models as basis functions for both geometry and field approximations, bypassing traditional meshing to achieve higher-order accuracy and efficiency in simulations of complex engineering problems.

Emerging Uses in Additive Manufacturing and VR/AR

Solid modeling has significantly advanced additive manufacturing (AM) by enabling the design of complex internal structures, such as lattice infills, which reduce weight while maintaining structural integrity in printed parts. For instance, topology optimization techniques generate solid models that incorporate lightweight lattice configurations, optimized for AM processes like wire-fed metal printing, as demonstrated in NASA's 2018 research on space applications. These lattices are represented using boundary or implicit solids, allowing for multiscale optimization that integrates elastically isotropic unit cells to produce ultralight, stiff structures suitable for aerospace components. Additionally, support structures are generated through Boolean difference operations on solid models, subtracting temporary volumes from the primary solid to create printable overhangs without post-processing artifacts, a method essential for complex geometries in fused deposition modeling. In virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), solid modeling facilitates real-time manipulation of 3D solids within immersive environments, such as Oculus-based VR systems, where users can deform and assemble parametric solids interactively using gesture controls integrated with kernels like Open CASCADE. Haptic feedback enhances this by providing tactile resistance along solid boundaries, simulating physical interactions during design reviews and enabling precise boundary detection in feature-based models. For example, Microsoft HoloLens applications allow engineers to verify assemblies of solid CAD models at full scale, overlaying AR visualizations on physical prototypes to check fit and interference, as implemented in automotive prototyping workflows. Hybrid representations combining (CSG) with or implicit methods improve printability in AM by generating variable-density infills; CSG trees define internal lattices via unions and intersections, ensuring watertight for slicing while minimizing material use. Recent AI-driven approaches, including diffusion models applied to neural implicit representations, automate solid generation from text or images, producing watertight 3D shapes since 2022 by denoising latent spaces of auto-decoders trained on shape datasets. These techniques enable complex, traditionally unmanufacturable geometries, such as graded lattices with multifunctional properties, and support collaborative AR sessions where multiple users annotate solid models in shared virtual spaces. Despite these advances, challenges persist, including ensuring watertight solid models for accurate AM slicing, where non-manifold edges can cause layer inconsistencies and print failures, necessitating robust boundary representations. In VR/AR, real-time rendering of detailed solids demands high frame rates, often limited by device hardware, requiring level-of-detail optimizations to maintain 60 fps without on boundaries.

References

  1. https://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/www/resources/papers/Hoffmann-CRC-1997-Solid_Modeling.pdf
  2. https://www.engineering.com/what-is-solid-modeling/
  3. https://spatial.engr.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/715/2014/04/2001-2.pdf
  4. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1674149
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045782522004108
  6. https://www.3ds.com/store/cad/solid-modeling
  7. https://www.solidworks.com/product/whats-new-2025
  8. https://faculty.cc.gatech.edu/~jarek/papers/SPM.pdf
  9. http://www.csun.edu/~ctoth/Handbook/chap57.pdf
  10. https://urresearch.rochester.edu/institutionalPublicationPublicView.action?institutionalItemId=987
  11. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Mathematical-Foundations-of-Constructive-Solid-of-Requicha-Tilove/4db40402f595abcca9daf1122aefd2aa85f9c145
  12. https://dl.acm.org/doi/book/10.5555/39278
  13. https://www.csun.edu/~ctoth/Handbook/chap57.pdf
  14. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1087053
  15. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/156011/
  16. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/027836498300200403
  17. https://urresearch.rochester.edu/institutionalPublicationPublicView.action?institutionalItemId=25930
  18. https://lvelho.impa.br/i3d11/modtec/p437-requicha.pdf
  19. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Parameterised-primitive-instancing-schema-examples_fig1_281183601
  20. https://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/upload/a/ac/3DModeling3_Representation.pdf
  21. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/1-4020-3871-2_8
  22. http://fab.cba.mit.edu/classes/S62.12/docs/Meagher_octree.pdf
  23. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA132472.pdf
  24. https://www.cs.uky.edu/~cheng/PUBL/voxel_gmp06.pdf
  25. https://yushen-liu.github.io/main/pdf/LiuYS_PR10VolArea.pdf
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2427166/
  27. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0755141.pdf
  28. http://www.13thmonkey.org/documentation/CAD/TM-26-brak.pdf
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/boundary-representation
  30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016636159090102U
  31. https://urresearch.rochester.edu/fileDownloadForInstitutionalItem.action?itemId=990&itemFileId=1173
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010448594900868
  33. https://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2018/cmsc425/Lects/lect14-solid-model.pdf
  34. https://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/research/rendering/csg-graphs/Papers/csg-graphs.pdf
  35. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/15922.15904
  36. https://cs.brown.edu/people/jhughes/papers/Laidlaw-CSG-1986/paper.pdf
  37. https://www.inf.usi.ch/hormann/papers/Greiner.1998.ECO.pdf
  38. https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/computingengineering/article/13/1/011004/371405/Feature-Based-Solid-Model-Reconstruction
  39. https://opencascade.blogspot.com/2010/01/surface-modeling-part5.html
  40. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1631/jzus.A071357
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010448504002519
  42. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2615486_An_Overview_of_Implicit_Surfaces
  43. https://math.berkeley.edu/~sethian/Papers/sethian.osher.88.pdf
  44. https://www.merl.com/publications/docs/TR2006-054.pdf
  45. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/37402.37422
  46. https://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs348b-20-spring-content/uploads/hart.pdf
  47. https://cgl.ethz.ch/Downloads/Publications/Dissertations/Sig06.pdf
  48. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01900346
  49. https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content_CVPR_2019/papers/Park_DeepSDF_Learning_Continuous_Signed_Distance_Functions_for_Shape_Representation_CVPR_2019_paper.pdf
  50. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3610548.3618170
  51. https://www.cad-journal.net/files/vol_5/CAD_5(5)_2008_639-653.pdf
  52. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Parametric%2Band%2BFeature-Based%2BCAD%252FCAM%253A%2BConcepts%252C%2BTechniques%252C%2Band%2BApplications-p-x000028646
  53. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366598117_Variational_Direct_Modeling_A_Framework_Towards_Integration_of_Parametric_Modeling_and_Direct_Modeling_in_CAD
  54. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/965161.806803
  55. https://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/www/resources/papers/Hoffmann-Computer_aided_Design-2001-Towards_Valid_Parametric_CAD_Models.pdf
  56. https://www.engineering.com/managing-relationships-in-complex-parametric-models/
  57. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/14979
  58. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/356827.356833
  59. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-08a30a07b95316cf29a28cd98143ab54/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-08a30a07b95316cf29a28cd98143ab54.pdf
  60. http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/evansAndSutherland/romulus/ROMULUS_A_Solid_Modeling_Evolution_16Oct1984.pdf
  61. https://www.shapr3d.com/history-of-cad/siemens-plm-software-unigraphics
  62. https://www.scan2cad.com/blog/cad/cad-evolved-since-1982/
  63. https://www.shapr3d.com/history-of-cad/parametric-technology-corporation
  64. https://www.solidworks.com/product/30-years/timeline
  65. https://www.steptools.com/stds/step/step_1.html
  66. https://www.spatial.com/solutions/3d-modeling/3d-acis-modeler
  67. https://dev.opencascade.org/doc/occt-6.7.0/overview/html/technical_overview.html
  68. https://www.onshape.com/en/resource-center/videos/our-story
  69. https://blogs.sw.siemens.com/nx-design/the-virtual-and-the-reality-a-brief-history-of-3d-cad-quality/
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S152407032300005X
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11680659/
  72. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318384792_3D_Boolean_operations_in_virtual_surgical_planning
  73. https://openbiomedicalengineeringjournal.com/VOLUME/9/PAGE/126/FULLTEXT/
  74. https://www.mdpi.com/2038-9582/14/3/33
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4615389/
  76. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22482657/
  77. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/technical-considerations-additive-manufactured-medical-devices
  78. https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/stmd/space-tech-research-grants/topology-optimization-of-lightweight-additively-manufactured-lattice-systems-for-space-applications/
  79. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15397734.2022.2107538
  80. https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/bitstreams/03d44db1-43a8-458d-8e13-731a9a7f9736/download
  81. https://www.autodesk.com/autodesk-university/class/Interact-Your-Inventor-and-Fusion-360-3D-Models-HTC-Vive-and-Microsoft-HoloLens-2018
  82. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395006580_CAD_in_Virtual_Reality_Integration_of_Solid_Modeling_in_Standalone_VR_Application
  83. https://novedge.com/blogs/design-news/design-software-history-from-cad-to-vr-the-transformative-evolution-in-design-visualization
  84. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350050932_A_Constructive_Solid_Geometry-based_Generative_Design_Method_for_Additive_Manufacturing
  85. https://www.sciopen.com/article/10.26599/CVM.2025.9450452
  86. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366004856_3D-LDM_Neural_Implicit_3D_Shape_Generation_with_Latent_Diffusion_Models
  87. https://www.autodesk.com/design-make/emerging-tech/extended-reality
  88. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292071907_Challenges_of_additive_manufacturing_technologies_from_an_optimisation_perspective
  89. https://professional3dservices.com/blog/3d-modeling-challenges-in-ar-vr-xr.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.