skip to main content
10.1145/3173574.3174070acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Forte: User-Driven Generative Design

Published:21 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Low-cost fabrication machines (e.g., 3D printers) offer the promise of creating custom-designed objects by a range of users. To maximize performance, generative design methods such as topology optimization can automatically optimize properties of a design based on high-level specifications. Though promising, such methods require people to map their design ideas--often unintuitively--to a small number of mathematical input parameters, and the relationship between those parameters and a generated design is often unclear, making it difficult to iterate a design. We present Forte, a sketch-based, real-time interactive tool for people to directly express and iterate on their designs via 2D topology optimization. Users can ask the system to add structures, provide a variation with better performance, or optimize internal material layouts. Users can globally control how much to 'deviate' from the initial sketch, or perform local suggestive editing, which interactively prompts the system to update based on the new information. Design sessions with 10 participants demonstrate that Forte empowers designers to create and explore a range of optimized designs with custom forms and styles.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

pn4038-file5.mp4

mp4

9.5 MB

pn4038.mp4

mp4

69.5 MB

References

  1. ANSYS 18. 2017. Topology Optimization: Applications. http://www.ansys.com/products/structures/ topology-optimization. (2017). (Accessed on 08/31/2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Niels Aage, Erik Andreassen, and Boyan Stefanov Lazarov. 2014. Topology optimization using petsc. Struct Multidiscip Optim (2014). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Niels Aage, Morten Nobel-Jørgensen, Casper Schousboe Andreasen, and Ole Sigmund. 2013. Interactive topology optimization on hand-held devices. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 47, 1 (2013), 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Erik Andreassen, Anders Clausen, Mattias Schevenels, Boyan S Lazarov, and Ole Sigmund. 2011. Efficient topology optimization in MATLAB using 88 lines of code. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 43, 1 (2011), 1--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Seok-Hyung Bae, Ravin Balakrishnan, and Karan Singh. 2008. ILoveSketch: as-natural-as-possible sketching system for creating 3d curve models. In Proceedings of the 21st annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. ACM, 151--160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Seok-Hyung Bae, Ravin Balakrishnan, and Karan Singh. 2009. EverybodyLovesSketch: 3D sketching for a broader audience. In Proceedings of the 22nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. ACM, 59--68. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Martin P Bendsøe, Ole Sigmund, Martin P Bendsøe, and Ole Sigmund. 2004. Topology optimization by distribution of isotropic material. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Hugh Beyer and Karen Holtzblatt. 1997. Contextual design: defining customer-centered systems. Elsevier. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Emre Biyikli and Albert C To. 2015. Proportional Topology Optimization: A New Non-Sensitivity Method for Solving Stress Constrained and Minimum Compliance Problems and Its Implementation in MATLAB. PloS one 10, 12 (2015), e0145041.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Nicolas Bonneel, Michiel Van De Panne, Sylvain Paris, and Wolfgang Heidrich. 2011. Displacement interpolation using Lagrangian mass transport. In ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), Vol. 30. ACM, 158. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. George Ferguson, James F Allen, Bradford W Miller, and others. 1996. TRAINS-95: Towards a Mixed-Initiative Planning Assistant.. In AIPS. 70--77. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Grasshopper. 2017. Stress topology optimization with Millipede. http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/ stress-topology-optimization-with-millipede. (2017). (Accessed on 08/23/2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Mark D Gross and Ellen Yi-Luen Do. 1996. Ambiguous intentions: a paper-like interface for creative design. In Proceedings of the 9th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. ACM, 183--192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Eric Horvitz. 1999. Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 159--166. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Takeo Igarashi and John F Hughes. 2001. A suggestive interface for 3D drawing. In Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. ACM, 173--181. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Takeo Igarashi, Satoshi Matsuoka, and Hidehiko Tanaka. 2007. Teddy: a sketching interface for 3D freeform design. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2007 Courses. ACM, 21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Autodesk Inventor. 2017. About Shape Generator. https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/ inventor-products/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/ cloudhelp/2016/ENU/Inventor-Help/files/ GUID-D74F47F3-FE22--44EF-85BE-7C6B1F56DCF9-htm.html. (2017). (Accessed on 08/31/2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Rubaiat Habib Kazi, Tovi Grossman, Hyunmin Cheong, Ali Hashemi, and George Fitzmaurice. 2017. DreamSketch: Early Stage 3D Design Explorations with Sketching and Generative Design. To appear at the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. MarkForged. 2017. Metal X. https://markforged.com/metal-x/. (2017). (Accessed on 08/23/2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Jonàs Martínez, Jérémie Dumas, Sylvain Lefebvre, and Li-Yi Wei. 2015. Structure and appearance optimization for controllable shape design. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 34, 6 (2015), 229. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. MatWeb. 2017. NatureWorks IngeoTM 2002D Extrusion Grade PLA. http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet. aspx?MatGUID=1e288619764846d2b794bd077e7f1bba&ckck=1. (2017). (Accessed on 09/05/2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Luke Olsen, Faramarz F Samavati, Mario Costa Sousa, and Joaquim A Jorge. 2009. Sketch-based modeling: A survey. Computers&Graphics 33, 1 (2009), 85--103. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Greg Saul, Manfred Lau, Jun Mitani, and Takeo Igarashi. 2011. SketchChair: an all-in-one chair design system for end users. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction. ACM, 73--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Kristina Shea, Robert Aish, and Marina Gourtovaia. 2003. Towards integrated performance-based generative design tools. Digital Design, ECAADE (2003), 253--264.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Ole Sigmund. 2001. A 99 line topology optimization code written in Matlab. Structural and multidisciplinary optimization 21, 2 (2001), 120--127. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. HP Official Site. 2017. HP 3D Printers and Printing Solution. http://www8.hp.com/us/en/printers/3d-printers.html. (2017). (Accessed on 08/23/2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Steve Tsang, Ravin Balakrishnan, Karan Singh, and Abhishek Ranjan. 2004. A suggestive interface for image guided 3D sketching. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 591--598. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Nobuyuki Umetani, Takeo Igarashi, and Niloy J Mitra. 2012. Guided exploration of physically valid shapes for furniture design. ACM Trans. Graph. 31, 4 (2012), 86--1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Mehmet Ersin Yumer, Siddhartha Chaudhuri, Jessica K Hodgins, and Levent Burak Kara. 2015. Semantic shape editing using deformation handles. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 34, 4 (2015), 86. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Yahan Zhou, Evangelos Kalogerakis, Rui Wang, and Ian R Grosse. 2016. Direct shape optimization for strengthening 3D printable objects. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 35. Wiley Online Library, 333--342. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Olgierd Cecil Zienkiewicz, Robert Leroy Taylor, Olgierd Cecil Zienkiewicz, and Robert Lee Taylor. 1977. The finite element method. Vol. 3. McGraw-hill London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Forte: User-Driven Generative Design

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2018
      8489 pages
      ISBN:9781450356206
      DOI:10.1145/3173574

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 21 April 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate666of2,590submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI '24
      CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 11 - 16, 2024
      Honolulu , HI , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader