Design space exploration is an important part of design in engineering fields. Recent research employs surrogate models to emulate finite element analyses across a design space, allowing rapid design space exploration. With interactive speeds, there exists a need for tools that help designers compare designs to one another. This difference model is comprised of a three-dimensional rendering of the geometry with the location and magnitude of differences between the two designs displayed as colors on the model surface. This visualization is combined with juxtaposed views of the objects being compared. A user experiment was conducted with 28 volunteers to demonstrate whether or not including the difference model in the visualization can improve speed and accuracy for various comparative design tasks. It was found that, for certain comparison tasks, there is indeed statistical evidence that using the difference model alongside the two juxtaposed views improved speed and accuracy when making design judgments between two different designs.
CoffeyDLinCErdmanAGet al. Design by dragging: an interface for creative forward and inverse design with simulation ensembles. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graph2013; 19(12): 2783–2791.
3.
AmooLM. On the design and structural analysis of jet engine fan blade structures. Prog Aerosp Sci2013; 60: 1–11.
4.
HughesTJ. The finite element method: linear static and dynamic finite element analysis. Chelmsford, MA: Courier Corporation, 2012.
5.
BunnellSThelinCGorrellSet al. Rapid visualization of compressor blade finite element models using surrogate modeling. In: ASME turbo expo 2018: turbomachinery technical conference and exposition. GT2018–77188, Oslo, 11–15 June 2018, p. V07AT30A011. New York: ASME.
KouHLinJsZhangJhet al. Dynamic and fatigue compressor blade characteristics during fluid-structure interaction: part I—blade modelling and vibration analysis. Eng Fail Anal2017; 76: 80–98.
8.
HeapRCHepworthAIJensenCG. Real-time visualization of finite element models using surrogate modeling methods. J Comput Inform Sci Eng2015; 15(1): 011007.
9.
SchulzAXuJZhuBet al. Interactive design space exploration and optimization for cad models. ACM Trans Graph2017; 36(4): 157.
NaderGWangKHétroy-WheelerFet al. Just noticeable distortion profile for flat-shaded 3d mesh surfaces. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graph2016; 22(11): 2423–2436.
12.
KimKCarlisJVKeefeDF. Comparison techniques utilized in spatial 3D and 4D data visualizations: a survey and future directions. Comput Graph2017; 67: 138–147.
13.
GleicherMAlbersDWalkerRet al. Visual comparison for information visualization. Inform Visual2011; 10(4): 289–309.
14.
GleicherM. Considerations for visualizing comparison. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graph2018; 24(1): 413–423.
15.
Johnson-RobersonMPizarroOWilliamsSBet al. Generation and visualization of large-scale three-dimensional reconstructions from underwater robotic surveys. J Field Robot2010; 27(1): 21–51.
16.
BlancTJGorrellSEJonesMRet al. Analysis and compression of time-accurate turbomachinery simulations using proper orthogonal decomposition. In: Proceedings of the 49th AIAA/ASME/SAE/SEE joint propulsion conference, San Jose, CA, 14–17 June 2013, p. 3620. Reston, VA: AIAA.
17.
ShenQPangAUseltonS. Data level comparison of wind tunnel and computational fluid dynamics data. In: Proceedings visualization 1998, Research Triangle Park, NC, 18–23 October 1998, pp. 415–418. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
18.
BehmannJMahleinAKPaulusSet al. Generation and application of hyperspectral 3D plant models: methods and challenges. Mach Vis Appl2016; 27(5): 611–624.
19.
StallingDWesterhoffMHegeHCet al. Amira: a highly interactive system for visual data analysis. In: HansenCDJohnsonCR (eds) The visualization handbook, vol. 38. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, 2005, pp. 749–767.
20.
RueckertDSonodaLIHayesCet al. Nonrigid registration using free-form deformations: application to breast mr images. IEEE Trans Med Imag1999; 18(8): 712–721.
21.
CorderoCZebeloSAGnaviGet al. HS-SPME-GC×GC-qMS volatile metabolite profiling of Chrysolina herbacea frass and Mentha spp. leaves. Anal Bioanal Chemist2012; 402(5): 1941–1952.
22.
ParkSSeoDKimYet al. Organic vapor detection using a color-difference image technique for distributed Bragg reflector structured porous silicon. Sens Actuat B Chem2010; 147(2): 775–779.
23.
ChopinJLagaHHuangCYet al. Rootanalyzer: a cross-section image analysis tool for automated characterization of root cells and tissues. Plos one2015; 10(9): e0137655.
24.
LuNWangJWuQet al. An improved motion detection method for real-time surveillance. IAENG Int J Comput Sci2008; 35(1): 119–128.
25.
AggarwalJNandhakumarN. On the computation of motion from sequences of images—a review. Proc IEEE1988; 76(8): 917–935.
26.
HanZHZhangYSongCXet al. Weighted gradient-enhanced kriging for high-dimensional surrogate modeling and design optimization. AIAA J2017(12): 4330–4346.
27.
JavedWElmqvistN. Exploring the design space of composite visualization. In: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE pacific visualization symposium, Songdo, South Korea, 28 February–2 March 2012, pp. 1–8. New York: IEEE.
28.
OvsjanikovMBen-ChenMSolomonJet al. Functional maps: a flexible representation of maps between shapes. ACM Trans Graph2012; 31(4): 30.
AlexanderEGleicherM. Task-driven comparison of topic models. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graph2016; 22(1): 320–329.
31.
VurputoorRMukherjeeNCabelloJet al. A mesh morphing technique for geometrically dissimilar tessellated surfaces. In: BrewerMLMarcumD (eds) Proceedings of the 16th international meshing roundtable. New York: Springer, 2008, pp. 315–334.
BergmanLDRogowitzBETreinishLA. A rule-based tool for assisting colormap selection. In: Proceedings visualization ’95, pp. 118–125. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=832271.833862
34.
TominskiCFuchsGSchumannH. Task-driven color coding. In: Proceedings of the information visualization, Atlanta, GA, October 1995, pp. 373–380. Thousand Oaks, CA: IEEE.
