Paper detail

A Survey on 3D CAD model quality assurance and testing tools

A new taxonomy of issues related to CAD model quality is presented, which distinguishes between explicit and procedural models. For each type of model, morphologic, syntactic, and semantic errors are characterized. The taxonomy was validated successfully when used to classify quality testing tools, which are aimed at detecting and repairing data errors that may affect the simplification, interoperability, and reusability of CAD models. The study shows that low semantic level errors that hamper simplification are reasonably covered in explicit representations, although many CAD quality testers are still unaffordable for Small and Medium Enterprises, both in terms of cost and training time. Interoperability has been reasonably solved by standards like STEP AP 203 and AP214, but model reusability is not feasible in explicit representations. Procedural representations are promising, as interactive modeling editors automatically prevent most morphologic errors derived from unsuitable modeling strategies. Interoperability problems between procedural representations are expected to decrease dramatically with STEP AP242. Higher semantic aspects of quality such as assurance of design intent, however, are hardly supported by current CAD quality testers.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.