Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:04:38.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Solving regional constraints in components layout design based on geometric gadgets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

H. Suzuki ,
T. Ito ,
H. Ando ,
K. Kikkawa  and
F. Kimura
H. Suzuki
Affiliation:
Department of Precision Machinery Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, 7–3–1, Hongo Bunkyo, Tokyo 113, Japan
T. Ito
Affiliation:
Department of Precision Machinery Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, 7–3–1, Hongo Bunkyo, Tokyo 113, Japan
H. Ando
Affiliation:
Department of Precision Machinery Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, 7–3–1, Hongo Bunkyo, Tokyo 113, Japan
K. Kikkawa
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kyshu Institute of Technology, 1–1 Sensui-cho, Tobata, Kitakyushu 804, Japan
F. Kimura
Affiliation:
Department of Precision Machinery Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, 7–3–1, Hongo Bunkyo, Tokyo 113, Japan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper proposes a new method for dealing with geometrical layout constraints. Geometrical layout constraints are classified into three classes of dimensional, regional, and interference constraints. Dimensional constraints are handled by using an existing methodology. A method is proposed to translate the other two classes of constraints into dimensional constraints. Thus, it is possible to uniformly deal with all of those geometrical layout constraints. The method is twofold. First, it converts regional, interference constraints into a set of simple inequalities. Then each inequality is solved by a geometric gadget, which is a structured set of dimensional constraints. A prototype system is developed and applied to some layout design examples.

Keywords

Layout DesignDimensional ConstraintsRegional Constraints
Type
Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , September 1997 , pp. 343 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Akin, O., Dave, B., & Pithavadian, S. (1988). Heuristic Generation of Layouts (HeGeL): Based on a paradigm for problem structuring. In Artificial Intelligence in Engineering: Design (J.S., Gero, Ed.), pp. 413–464. Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
Aldefeld, B. (1986). RULE-BASED approach to variational geometry. In CAD 86 (Smith, A., Ed.), pp. 59–67. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Arbab, F., & Wing, J.M. (1985). Geometric reasoning—A new paradigm for processing geometric information. In Design Theory for CAD (Yoshikawa, H., & Warman, E.A., Eds.), pp. 107–121. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
D-Cubed Ltd. (1994). The dimensional constraint manager, 2D DCM manual.Google Scholar
Flemming, U., Coyne, R., Glavin, T., & Rychener, M. (1988). A generative expert system for the design of building layouts, version 2. In Artificial Intelligence in Engineering: Design (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 445–464. Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
Harada, M., Witkin, A., & Baraff, D. (1995).Interactive Physically-Based Manipulation of Discrete/Continuous Models, ACM Siggraph 95, Conference Proc., 199–208.Google Scholar
Hillyard, R.C. (1978). Proc. of SIGGRAPH '78, 234–238.Google Scholar
Hopcroft, J., Joseph, D., & Whitesides, S. (1986). Movement Problems for 2-Dimensional Linkages, Planning, Geometry, and Complexity of Robot Motion (Schwartz, J.T., Sharir, M., & Hopcroft, J. Eds.), pp. 282–303. Ablex Publishing Corp., Norwood, NJ.Google Scholar
Kameyama, K., Kondo, K., & Ohtomi, K. (1990). Proc. of ASME DTM, 33–38.Google Scholar
Kim, J.J., & Gossard, D.C. (1991). Reasoning on the location of components for assembly packaging. J. Mechanical Design 113, 402–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, G. (1992). Solving geometric constraint systems—A case study in kinematics. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Light, R.A., & Gossard, D.C. (1982). Modification of geometric models through variational geometry. Computer-Aided Design 14 (4), 209–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, M.C., & Canny, J.F. (1994). IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 1008–1014.Google Scholar
Lin, V.C., Gossard, D.C., & Light, R. A. (1981). Variational geometry in computer-aided design. ACM Computer Graphics 15 (3), 171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, J.C. (1991). Algebraic solution for geometry from dimensional constraints. Proc. of ACM Symposium on Solid Modelling Foundations and CAD/CAM Applications (Rossignàc, J., & Turner, J., Eds.), pp. 397–407. ACM Press, New York.Google Scholar
Sutherland, I.E. (1963). Proc. of 23rd SJCC. 329–346.Google Scholar
Suzuki, H., Kimura, F., & Sata, T. (1985). Treatment of dimensions on product modelling concept. In Design and Synthesis (Yoshikawa, H., Ed.), pp. 491–496. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Suzuki, H., Ando, H., & Kimura, F. (1990). Geometric constraints and reasoning for geometrical CAD systems. Computers and Graphics 14 (2), 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tjalve, E. (1979). A short course in industrial design, pp. 141–173. Newne-Butterworths, Boston, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, D.R., & Jakiela, M.J. (1993). Automated product concept design: Unifying aesthetics and engineering. IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications 13 (4), 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar