...step.
Note, however, that for static weights, the matrices become time invariant and the computational cost is reduced significantly.
```.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
```
...directions.
In the case of the D-NURBS curve, there are only two terms and two weighting functions in the potential energy form because of the single spatial parameter u: 88#88.
```.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
```
...155#155.
The entries of the D-NURBS curve element stiffness matrix are 156#156, where 157#157 Given integer 148#148, we can find Gauss quadrature abscissas 152#152 and weights 150#150 such that 145#145 can be approximated as follows: 158#158.
```.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
```
...panels.
At present, our software assumes uniform mass, damping, and elasticity densities over the parametric domain, except across trimming boundaries (see Section 7.2). This is straightforwardly generalizable to accommodate the nonuniform density functions in our formulation, although our user interface would have to be extended to afford the user full control in specifying these functions.
```.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
```
...point.
Cross-validation [41] provides a principled approach to choosing the relevant physical parameters-typically the ratio of data force spring constants to surface stiffnesses-for given data sets. For the special case of zero-mean Gaussian data errors, optimal approximation in the least squares residual sense results when c is proportional to the inverse variance of data errors [35].
```.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
```

Demetri Terzopoulos | Source Reference