The development of solid modeling to represent the geometry of designed parts and the development of parametric modeling to control the size and shape have had significant impacts on the efficiency and speed of the design process. Designers now rely on parametric solid modeling, but often are frustrated by a problem that unpredictably causes their sketches to become twisted, contorted, or take an unexpected shape. Mathematically, this problem, known as the “multiple solution problem” occurs because the dimensions and geometric constraints yield a set of non-linear equations with many roots. In practice, this situation occurs because the dimensioning and geometric constraint information given in a CAD model is not sufficient to unambiguously and flexibly specify which configuration the user desires. This paper first establishes that only explicit, independent solution selection declarations can provide a flexible mechanism that is sufficient for all situations. The paper then describes the systematic derivation of a set of “solution selector” types by considering the occurrences of multiple solutions in combinations of mutually constrained geometric entities. The result is a set of eleven basic solution selector types and two derived types that incorporate topological information. In particular, one derived type “concave/convex” is user-oriented and may prove to be particularly useful.

Issue Section:
Technical Papers
Keywords:
CAD, solid modelling, engineering computing, constraint theory, topology, computational geometry
Topics:
Computer-aided design, Design, Dimensions, Geometry, Solid modeling, Topology
1.
Unigraphics, 2001, “Unigraphics: Product Overview,” http://www.ugsolutions.com/products/unigraphics/overview, February 7.
2.
SDRC, 2001, “SDRC—Get There Faster,” http://www.SDRC.com/ideas/index.shtml, February 7.
3.
Autodesk, 2001, “Autodesk Inventor,” http://www3.autodesk.com/adsk/index/0,,392705-123112,00.html, February 7.
4.
Buchanan
,
S. A.
, and
de Pennington
,
A.
,
1993
, “The Constraint Definition System: A Computer Algebra Based Approach to Solving Geometric Problems,” Comput.-Aided Des., 25(12).
5.
Hoffmann, C. M., 1993, “On the Semantics of Generative Geometry Representations,” Proc. 19th ASME Design Conference, Vol. 2, pp. 411–420.
6.
Bouma
,
W.
,
Fudos
,
I.
,
Hoffmann
,
C.
,
Cai
,
J.
, and
Paige
,
R.
,
1995
, “
Geometric Constraint Solver
,”
Comput.-Aided Des.
,
27
(
6
), pp.
487
–
501
.
7.
van Emmerik
,
M.
,
1991
, “
Interactive Design of 3D Models with Geometric Constraints
,”
Visual Comput.
,
7
, pp.
309
–
325
.
8.
Solano, L., and Brunet, P., 1993, “A System for Constructive Constraint-Based Modeling,” Modeling in Computer Graphics, B. Falcidieno, T. L. Kunii, eds. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
9.
Kramer, G. A., 1992, Solving Geometric Constraint Systems, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
10.
Fudos
,
I.
, and
Hoffmann
,
C. M.
,
1996
, “
Correctness Proof of a Geometric Constraint Solver
,”
Intl. J. of Computational Geometry and Applications
,
6
(
4
), pp.
405
–
420
.
11.
Fudos
,
I.
, and
Hoffmann
,
C. M.
,
1997
, “
A Graph-Constructive Approach to Solving Systems of Geometric Constraints
,”
ACM Trans. Graphics
,
16
(
2
), pp.
179
–
216
.
12.
Shimizu, S., Inoue, K., and Numao, M., 1991, “An ATMS-Based Geometric Constraint Solver for 3D CAD,” Proc. Third Int. Conf. On Tools for AI, San Jose, CA, Nov. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA.
13.
Aldefeld
,
B.
,
1988
, “
Variation of Geometries Based on a Geometric-Reasoning Method
,”
Comput.-Aided Des.
,
20
(
3
), pp.
117
–
126
.
14.
Owen, J. C., 1991, “Algebraic Solution for Geometry from Dimensional Constraints,” Proc. Symposium on Solid Modeling Foundations and CAD/CAM Applications, Austin, Texas, June 5–7, acm press, New York.
15.
D-Cubed, 1999, The 2D DCM Manual Version 3.7.0, D-Cubed Ltd., Cambridge, England.
16.
Suzuki
,
H.
,
Hidetoshi
,
A.
, and
Kimura
,
F.
,
1990
, “
Geometric Constraints and Reasoning for Geometrical CAD Systems
,”
Comput. Graph.
,
14
(
2
), pp.
211
–
224
.
17.
Venkatamaran, S., 2000, “Integration of Design by Features and Feature Recognition,” Master’s Thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
18.
Bettig
,
B.
, and
Shah
,
J.
,
2001
, “
Derivation of a Standard Set of Geometric Constraints for Parametric Modeling and Data Exchange
,”
Comput.-Aided Des.
,
33
, pp.
17
–
33
.
19.
Nielson, J., and Roth, B., 1998, “Formulation and Solution for the Direct and Inverse Kinematics Problems for Mechanisms and Mechatronic Systems,” Computation Methods in Mechanical Systems: Mechanism Analysis, Synthesis and Optimization, J. Angeles, E. Zakhariev, eds., Springer, New York, pp. 33–52.
20.
Bettig
,
B.
, and
Shah
,
J.
,
1999
, “
An Object-oriented Program Shell for Integrating CAD Software Tools
,”
Adv. Eng. Software
,
30
(
8
), pp.
529
–
541
.
Copyright © 2003
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.