COMPUTER-AIDED

DESIGN
Computer-Aided Design 33 (2001) 17±33
www.elsevier.com/locate/cad

Derivation of a standard set of geometric constraints for parametric

modeling and data exchange
B. Bettig a, J. Shah b,*
a
Mechanical Engineering-Engineering Mechanics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931-1295, USA
b
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281-6106, USA
Received 7 July 1999; revised 25 February 2000; accepted 1 March 2000

Abstract
This paper describes the derivation of a consistent and comprehensive set of geometrical constraints for shape de®nition in CAD. Such a
set is needed to enable compatibility in parametric data exchange and to promote both standard capabilities and predictable solutions from
constraint solving software kernels. The paper looks at the mathematical basis for constraints present in the literature and elaborates about all
types of constraints that can be described by the same mathematical basis. Exhaustive combinations of distance and angle constraints, on one
point or all points of curves and surfaces, as well as transformations and mappings that are required in mechanical design are included in the
proposed taxonomy and representation. Consistency is promoted by distinguishing necessary constraint types from redundant constraint
types. Comprehensiveness is promoted by including all constraint types from the literature that are within the scope and considering
combinatorial variations of them. q 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Parametric data exchange; Geometric constraints taxonomy and representation; Geometric modeling

1. Introduction are given as parameters. The values of these parameters

There is a need in the Computer-Aided Design (CAD)
community to standardize the classi®cation and speci®ca-
tion of geometric constraints. While the representation of
solid models is now well developed and established in the
literature, in solid modeling kernels and in exchange stan-
dards, the representation and exchange of geometric
constraints is still evolving. Two ISO/STEP sub-committees
are currently engaged in the development of short and long-
term solutions to the exchange of parametric data. The work
presented in this paper is motivated by the desire to provide
a rational basis for standards of the future.
The use of geometric constraints in shape de®nition is
also growing, as evidenced by the proliferation of CAD
software systems supporting parameterized geometry. Para-
meterized geometric models are used because they allow the
geometry to be easily edited, inherently include design
intent information and allow a family of different sized
parts to be represented by a single model. For example,
the dimensioned part shown in Fig. 1(a) is dimensioned
with literal values and three dimensions (d1, d2 and d3)
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 11-480-965-6145; fax: 11-480-965-2412.
E-mail addresses: bettig@mtu.edu (B. Bettig), jami.shah@asu.edu
(J. Shah).
0010-4485/00/$ - see front matter q 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0010-448 5(00)00058-0
can vary, thus providing an ªinstanceº of a part in a part
family. If only the geometric entities are transferred, the ®le
only has the data shown in Fig. 1(b) plus topological (e.g. B-
rep) data. The receiver of the ®le is able to know the part
geometry for a single instance. This is enough information
to NC machine an instance of the part, for example, but does
not provide the design intent necessary for someone else to
edit the part and does not identify the controlling parameters
for con®guration design. As well, it does not provide suf®-
cient information to design a manufacturing plan that can be
used for all variations of the part. The additional dimension-
ing information from Fig. 1(c) must also be transferred, or
inferred.
The bene®ts of parameterized descriptions of parts are
clear, but what types of dimensioning are necessary and
should be supported? In the example, only DISTANCE
and ANGLE dimensions are used, but what other
constraint types are needed for more complex parts?
Various parts of proposed standards and constraint solvers
differ in these respects. For example, the current ISO/
STEP working document [1] has a SAME_DIRECTION
constraint, while ENGEN [2] does not. D-Cubed DCM
[3], a commercial product, has a single DISTANCE
constraint, while the standards employ separate constraints
when dealing with points (POINT_DISTANCE), lines and
18 B. Bettig, J. Shah / Computer-Aided Design 33 (2001) 17±33
d1 20
10
5˚
15 5˚
d2
20
d3
(a) dimensioning
#1=PLANE((10.,0.,0.),(0.,-1.,0.));
#2=PLANE…
#12=LINE((0.,0.,0.),(0.,0.,1.));
#13=LINE…
#28=POINT((0.,0.,-8.25));
#29=POINT…
(b) geometric entities
#40=PARAMETER(‘d1’,30.);
#41=PARAMETER…
#43=DISTANCE(#1,#3,#41);
#44=DISTANCE…
#50=ANGLE(#9,#4,5.);
#51=ANGLE…
(c) parameters and declarative constraints
Fig. 1. A parameterized part.
planes (PARALLEL_WITH_DIMENSION) or general
curves and surfaces (PARALLEL_OFFSET_WITH_DI-
MENSION). These differences are summarized in the
Appendix. These differences indicate that a systematically
derived standard set of geometric constraint types is neces-
sary. A standard set of constraint types would be useful for
both parametric data exchange and for the development of
constraint solving kernels. Parametric data exchange is
considered in this study in order to promote compatibility
and interchangeability of information. The requirements for
future constraint solving kernels are also considered in order
to promote standard capabilities, predictable solutions and
standard Application Programming Interfaces (API).
Several researchers have proposed standard sets of
geometric constraint types useful for shape de®nition.
These have been proposed for various reasons: data
exchange, API to solvers, problem formulation, user inter-
face/geometry construction in CAD software. A formal
model was developed by Kramer [4], who proposed
ªmarkersº (a point and two orthogonal axes) as primitives
that could be ®xed to bodies in order to relate them to each
other by means of six basic binary or ternary constraints
(e.g., coincidence, offset_x). This approach is particularly
suited to the representation of kinematic linkages, but is less
suited for shape de®nition since point, curve and surface
entities are not referenced explicitly. Shah and Rogers [5]
proposed ®ve basic structures (part_of, structuring_relation,
Deg_of_free, motion_limit, and ®t) for declarative model-
ing of parts, features, and assemblies. [6±8] provide a devel-
opment of ªstructuring_relationº constraints between point,
line and plane that also account for positive and negative
line directions and plane normals. CleÂment et al. [9] have
also formalized geometric relations between six basic types
of surfaces for use in tolerance analysis. These relations are
all reducible to distance and angle relationships. Kandikjan
5˚
and Shah [10] provide distinction between different types of
distance and angle relationships based on degree and direc-
tionality of freedom removed from target entities.
In the ISO/STEP community there has been a desire to
develop a standard set of geometric constraints for exchan-
ging parametric product data models between commercial
systems. As part of the standards development process, a
procedural model [11] and a more comprehensive model [2]
have been proposed toward this goal. The latter de®nes not
only geometric constraints but also algebraic equations and
construction history. However, 3D geometric constraints are
not included. The issues associated with geometric
constraint representation are described by Pratt [12] and
the current ISO/STEP parameterization and geometric
constraint standards working document [1] has been devel-
oped. This standard continues to be developed and though
agreement is being achieved it is not clear whether the
standard contains all types of geometric constraints likely
to be needed in the near future.
In the constraint solving literature, many researchers have
also informally described the types and categories of
geometric constraints solved by their respective systems
[13±22]. Though a certain amount of uniformity exists in
the types of geometric constraints that are described, there is
suf®cient diversity to suggest that the problem is not yet
completely understood. Anderl and Mendgen [21], in parti-
cular, indicate that the exchange of constraint-based models
is still an open issue. Table 1 classi®es the different kinds of
constraints between points, curves and surfaces in the
geometric constraint representation and solving literature
and shows the different terminology that is used.
2. Research overview
2.1. Scope
The investigation is limited to considering geometrical
entities from the STEP Part 42 geometry schema [23] and
include only the following entity types and their sub-types:
² Direction
² Cartesian point
² Curves: Line, Conics, B-Spline Curves
² Surfaces: Elementary Surfaces, B-Spline Surfaces.
Directions are included as distinct entity types so that these
can be referenced explicitly. In some schemas only resolved
directions of lines, planes and axisymmetric entities are
referenced. The conic curves from STEP Part 42 include
the circle, ellipse, hyperbola and parabola. The elementary
surfaces include the planar, cylindrical, conical, spherical
and toroidal surfaces. B-Spline curves and surfaces can have
knots and can be rational. Topological information is not
used.
 B. Bettig, J. Shah / Computer-Aided Design 33 (2001) 17±33 19

Table 1
Survey and classi®cation of general geometric constraint types

Constraint type groupings Terminology used by references Comment

1. Distance, angle Dimensional constraint [10,12± Term ªdimensional constraintº

2. Coincident, incident,
tangent, concentric, coaxial,
parallel, perpendicular
3. Radius, major axis, focal
distance, etc.
4. Fixed, ®xed coordinate,
®xed direction, horizontal,
vertical
5. Horizontal distance,
vertical distance
6. Distance along curve, area,
moment of inertia, etc.
7. Midpoint, symmetric, etc.
16], metric constraint [17],
geometric design constraint [18]
Logical constraint [15],
geometric constraint [12,13]
structural constraint [17],
dimensional constraint [14,16],
geometric design constraint [18]
Geometric property de®nition
[18], dimensional constraint
[12,13], metric constraint [17]
Geometric property de®nition
[17±20]
Dimensional constraint [16]
Geometric constraint [16],
engineering constraint [2]
Geometric constraint [12],
structural constraint [17],
position constraint [2]
is most common
Terms ªlogical constraintº,
ªgeometric constraintº and
ªstructural constraintº are
sometimes used for constraints
not involving dimensions
Term ªdimensional constraintº
is most common. Suzuki et al.
make a distinction on these
constraints which directly set
property values
Many references do not include
constraints which stop rigid
body motion
Most references do not include
constraints which are relative to
a coordinate frame
Except for distance along curve,
these constraints, that may be
described in terms of de®nite
integrals, are seldom mentioned
Constraints that involve
positioning relative to reference
geometry(s)

Only constraints referencing the above geometric entity
types are considered. All classes of constraints from Table 1
are considered except for row 6, the integrational
constraints. Integrational constraints are not considered
because they depend on topological information.
Also out of scope are constraints that are not directly used
to generate the positions of geometric entities. The term
ªactiveº constraint is used to denote a constraint that contri-
butes to the shape generation and the term ªpassiveº denotes
a constraint that does not. An example of a passive
constraint is INSIDE (sphere1, sphere2), where sphere2is
constrained to be inside sphere1. While this constraint can
bound the possible positions and radii of the spheres, it does
not take away any degrees of freedom in calculating them.
Active constraints can be described in terms of algebraic
equations, while passive constraints may be described in
terms of inequalities or in other ways. Passive constraints
are out of scope for this research.
The solution methods to satisfy systems of these
constraints are not considered, making the derived set of
constraints independent of any particular solving strategy.
Note that the paper does not propose any new solution tech-
niques nor do we attempt to survey the state of the art in
solving (several good surveys exist). Instead, the paper
focuses on the representation of geometric constraints. As
well, not all constraint types derived here may be solvable
by current technology, but the research here should provide
a framework for future research in geometric constraint
solving.
Also out of scope is the problem of distinguishing
between and choosing from multiple solutions. (This will
be examined in a later paper). Only 3D geometry is consid-
ered, but the constraint de®nitions should be readily conver-
tible to 2D.
2.2. Research objectives
The primary objective of this research is to systematically
derive a comprehensive and consistent set of geometric
constraints for shape de®nition so as to provide a rational
basis for data exchange standards and neutral API's for
geometric constraint solvers.
In the geometric constraint representation and constraint
solving literature, different classes of constraints are
evident, as shown in Table 1. The most prevalent are
distance and angle constraints between pairs of geometric
entities. Setting distances and angles to zero derives coin-
cident, incident, tangent, concentric, paralleland perpendi-
cularconstraints. Setting zero distances to resolved
geometry (center point or axis line of the constrained
element) derives concentric and coaxial constraints.
Constraints such as radius, major axis, focal distance, etc.
are used to set intrinsic shape property values. Constraints
such as ®xed, ®xed point, ®xed_horizontal, etc. set geometric
property values that limit rigid body motion. Constraints
such as distance along curve, area and volume may be
described mathematically as de®nite integrals of bounded
geometry. Constraints such as midpoint and symmetric
20 B. Bettig, J. Shah / Computer-Aided Design 33 (2001) 17±33
relate more than two geometric entities and can often be
de®ned in terms of the above constraint types. Rigid setsare
used to position groups of geometric entities as a single unit.
The premise of this paper is that all geometric constraint
types likely to be required in the near future fall into the
eight classes shown in Table 1. By determining all
constraint types implied by the mathematical basis of each
class a ªcomprehensiveº set of constraint types can be
derived. That is, a set comprising all constraint types from
Table 1 as well as all identi®able variations of these
constraint types. These variations should also consider the
various types of geometric entities constrained, including
arbitrary curves and surfaces.
Besides being comprehensive, the set should also be
ªconsistentº. A consistent set is obtained by including
only the basic, required constraint types. Compound
constraints, which can be modeled as combinations of
other constraints, should not be included. For example, a
constraint equivalent to a prismatic kinematic joint can be
modeled with one distance constraint and one angle
constraint. Such a constraint should not be included in this
set. Overlapping constraints, where different constraint
types yield the same results should not be included. Similar
constraint types, differing only in the type of entities to
which they apply, should be uni®ed by generalizing
constraint de®nitions to encompass both uses.
A third requirement is that the constraints be intuitive for
a mechanical designer to use. Standard dimensioning prac-
tice (e.g. as found in ASME [24]) reveals the level of
abstraction at which designers operate. This is the level of
abstraction at which geometric constraints are naturally
added to a design. The derived constraint types should there-
fore be at a similar level of abstraction. Note that this is a
subjective requirement.
The problem of this paper, then, is to derive a set of
geometric constraints for parametric shape description that
is:
1. comprehensive, encompassing all constraints in Table 1
and all constraints having the same mathematical basis as
those in Table 1;
2. consistent, not including compound constraints, overlap-
ping constraint types or entity-speci®c constraint type
variations; 1 and
3. intuitive, being at the same level of abstraction as
elements of standard dimensioning practice.
Item (1) guarantees that the set includes all currently used
constraints and all variations of currently used constraints
that might be desirable in the near future. Item (2) leads to
simpler schemas for parametric data exchange and easier
standardization of solver API's. Item (3) leads to more intui-
tive usage by geometry designers.
1
Even so, some often-used non-fundamental constraints are included.
These are marked with an asterisk in this paper.
Design
Parameters Geometrical
Entities
I Value Hold ers
II Relationships
Constraints
Fig. 2. The relationship between design parameters, geometrical entities
and constraints.
3. Assumptions/derivation rules
To derive the set of constraint types some assumptions
are ®rst made:
1. Separate existence of Constrained Entities and
Constraints (Relations) as shown in Fig. 2, an Entity-
Relationship model is followed in which parameters
and geometrical entities are used to hold the values of
variables and constraints are used to specify relation-
ships. The values of variables give the shape (current
instance). Constraints specify relationships between
parameters, between geometrical entities and between
parameters and geometrical entities (i.e. algebraic, logi-
cal and dimensional constraints respectively).
By this assumption, the declarative approach to para-
metric design and not the procedural approach is
followed. In the procedural approach, a new geometrical
entity (point, curve or surface) is de®ned in terms of the
positions of existing geometrical entities (e.g. a new line
is constructed which lies on two existing points). In the
procedural approach, the geometrical constraints are
implied, not explicit. In the declarative, or ªexplicitº
constraint approach, the geometric entities are declared
®rst, then constraints between these entities are declared
(e.g. create line, then create two INCIDENT constraints
with existing points). These declared constraints are
referenced individually and can be individually removed
or replaced.
2. It is assumed that the number and types of constrained
entities and constraints are constant in any given
problem. In deriving the set of constraint types, we
assume that evaluation/querying of constraint systems
does not require or cause new entities or constraints to
be added, removed or to have their types changed. In
particular, the topology is constant. The implication of
this is that ªpatternº constraints specifying arbitrary
numbers of repetitions of features are not included.
3. All entities can ultimately be de®ned in terms of
scalar variables and all constraints can ultimately be
de®ned in terms of scalar variable equations. Passive
constraints are disallowed because they are based on
inequality expressions.
4. Since topological information is not used, geometrical
entities are considered to be ªunboundedº or ªuntrimmedº.
 B. Bettig, J. Shah / Computer-Aided Design 33 (2001) 17±33
Geometric Constraints
Distance and Angle-based vs.
Transformation-based
No. of ent ities related by
constraint: 2/1/>2
Physical or resolved geometry
(5.*.1)
(5.*.2)
Distance or Angle (5.*.3)
(5.*.4)
One point or all points
Dimension is regular, limiting
case or unknown
Rigid or non-rigid set
Same dimensionality or
between dimensionalities
Fig. 3. Morphology of geometric constraint types.
That is, the geometrical entities do not have explicit bound-
aries speci®ed on them using other geometrical entities. To
promote uniform treatment of analytic and B-spline curves
and surfaces, B-splines are also considered to be
unbounded.
5. When a particular dimension value causes more than the
usual degrees of freedom to be constrained, a speci®c
constraint type is de®ned for that case. (e.g. DISTANCE
(point1, point2, distance_value) usually restricts one
degree of freedom, but if distance_value ˆ 0., then it will
restrict three degrees of freedom and COINCIDENT
(point1, point2) is used instead.)
6. When a particular dimension value results in less than the
usual number of multiple solutions, a speci®c constraint
type is de®ned for that case. (e.g. DISTANCE (point1,
surface2, distance_value) usually has two solutions corre-
sponding to point1being on either side of surface2, but if
distance_value ˆ 0., then there can only be one solution
and INCIDENT (point1, surface2) is used instead.)
4. Investigation procedure
In the investigation, two broad classes of constraints were
considered as being distinct and were handled differently.
These are distance and angle-based constraints (Rows 1±7
of Table 1), and transformation-based constraints (Row 8 of
Table 1). Morphological variations that can be described by
differences in the underlying mathematical equations are
considered for each class. Fig. 3 gives a tree showing the
variations.
21
Sec. 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4
(5.*.5) (5.*.6)
...
Sec. 5.5 Sec. 5.6
Distance and angle-based constraints were separated into
categories according to the type of geometrical entities
constrained. Speci®cally, we considered: constraints
applicable to all directions, points, curves and surfaces
(Section 5.1), constraints applicable to linear entities
(lines and planes) (Section 5.2), constraints applicable to
conics and selected cyclides (cylinder, sphere, cone, torus)
(Section 5.3) and constraints applicable to free-form curves
and surfaces (Section 5.4). There are ®ve morphological
variations that were considered. The ®rst is in the number
of geometric entities related by the constraint: one, two or
more than two (unary, binary or n-ary). The second is
whether the constraint applies to the actual curve or surface,
or whether the constraint applies to resolved geometry (e.g.
axis of a cylindrical surface). The third variation is whether
the constraint is based on a distance measure or angle
measure. The fourth variation is whether the equation
applies at a single point or all points of each curve or
surface. The ®fth variation is in whether certain dimension
values result in limiting cases discussed in Assumptions 5 or
6, or whether the dimension can be treated as unknown.
These variations were studied in the following groupings:
distances between constrained elements (Sections 5.*.1 2),
angles between constrained elements (Sections 5.*.2),
distances to resolved geometry of constrained elements
(Sections 5.*.3), angles to resolved directions of constrained
elements (Sections 5.*.4), unary constraints involving assign-
ment of constant values to attributes (Sections 5.*.5) and n-ary
constraints involving auxiliary geometry (Sections 5.*.6).
2
That is 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.3.1, 5.4.1. (* represents 1±4).
22 B. Bettig, J. Shah / Computer-Aided Design 33 (2001) 17±33

DISTANCE (P1, P2, r) 5. Derivation results

DISTANCE (P1, C1, r)
C1
DISTANCE (P1, S1, r) P1 r 5.1. Direction, point, generic curve and generic surface
P2
geometry

This ®rst category gives geometric constraints that are

applicable to directions, points and all types of curves and
surfaces. From Assumption 4 in Section 3 points, curves
S1
and surfaces are positioned with respect to each other, but
(a) are considered topologically unrelated. For the purpose of
the investigation, directions have two degrees of freedom in
DISTANCE (C1, C2, r) three-dimensional space, and are described as free unit
DISTANCE (C1, S2, r)
OFFSET_CURVE (C1, S1); DISTA NCE (C1, S1, r)
vectors. Points have three degrees of freedom and may be
OFFSET_CURVE (C3, C1); DISTANCE (C3, C1, r) described as vectors bound at the origin. Curves are de®ned
parametrically as a set of points which can be described by
an equation of the form c ˆ C t†; where c is a vector repre-
C3 senting coordinates in three dimensional space and C t† is a
C2 function, continuous with respect to t and valid, though not
necessarily meaningful, for any real t. Surfaces are de®ned
C1 as a set of points described by s ˆ S u; v† where S u; v† is
r S1 S2 continuous with respect to u and v and valid but not
necessarily meaningful for all real values of u and v.
(b)

DISTANCE (S1, S2, r)

DISTANCE (S1, C1, r)
OFFSET_CURVE (C2, S1); DISTA NCE (C2, S1, r)
OFFSET_SURFACE (S3, S1); DISTA NCE (S3, S1, r)
C1
S2
C2
r curve or surface. An alternative interpretation, suggested by
S3
S1
(c)
Fig. 4. DISTANCE, OFFSET_CURVE and OFFSET_SURFACE
constraints.
For transformation-based constraints two morphological
variations were considered. The ®rst involved variations in
how the ªbefore-transformationº entities are treated,
whether they are ®xed (rigid) or not ®xed. In the case
where they are ®xed only the relative positions are impor-
tant and it is not necessary to have both the ªbeforeº and
ªafterº entities. In the case where they are not ®xed the
entities must exist in pairs, for both sides of the transforma-
tion. This morphological variation therefore provided two
categories: setsÐrigid (Section 5.5) and mappingsÐnot
rigid (Section 5.6). A second morphological variation
applicable for mappings was in the dimensionality of
space of each side of the transformation, be they the same
(e.g. 3D to 3D) or different (e.g. 2D to 3D).
5.1.1. Constraint types derived as distances between pairs of
points, curves and surfaces
Current solvers and constraints schemas apply distance
constraints to simple geometry such as points, lines and
planes as well as to simple curves in two-dimensional
space. Typically, the dimension value must be a positive
number. Distance constraints between points have the
obvious meaning given by the Pythagorean theorem.
Distances between a point and a curve or surface intuitively
means the distance from the point to the closest point of the
the D-Cubed [3] implementation of distance constraints
against ellipses, is that the distance to the farthest point of
the curve may be used. A more general, commonly accepted
interpretation is that a point of the curve or surface to which
the distance can be measured is a point with no neighboring
points (in the curve or surface point set) whose distance is
less, or a point with no neighboring points whose distance is
greater. This interpretation is applicable to arbitrary curves
and surfaces and includes the two cases for ellipses, includes
the case of parallel offset curves and surfaces and allows for
non-smooth points of curves and surfaces. The interpreta-
tion may be visualized in the following way. Imagine that all
geometric entities have offset surfaces, where the offset
surface of a point is a spherical surface, of a curve is a
tubular surface and of a surface is another surface at the
offset distance (Fig. 4). A distance constraint requires one
entity to have a tangent on the offset surface of the other
entity.
For distances between lines in 2D or planes in 3D, this
de®nition may be applied in two ways: (i) the lines or planes
have the same direction and the distance de®nition may be
applied at any arbitrary point, or (ii) the distance de®nition
 B. Bettig, J. Shah / Computer-Aided Design 33 (2001) 17±33
applies at ALL points of each line or plane. Elaboration of
the second de®nition leads to a generalization of the
constraint for arbitrary curves and surfaces in which all points
of a curve or surface must lie on the offset surface of the
other curve or surface (i.e. CURVE_OFFSET_DISTANCE
and SURFACE_OFFSET_DISTANCE constraints). In this
way, this elaboration was established as an important
morphological variation in the derivation procedure. As
well, it was noted that for offset curves and surfaces it
might be desirable to dimension against an entity other
than the one from which it is offset. This lead to the consid-
eration for unknown dimensions in offset distance
constraints. Considering the morphological variations: (i)
all combinations of distances between point, curve and
surface; (ii) all combinations of whether the distance applies
at one point of the curve or surface or all points; and (iii)
whether the distance is positive, zero or unknown leads to
the following constraints:
DISTANCE (entity1, entity2, distance_value)
OFFSET_CURVE (curve1, curve_or_surface2)
OFFSET_SURFACE (surface1, curve_or_surface2)
COINCIDENT (entity1, entity2)
INCIDENT (entity1, entity2)
TANGENT (curve_or_surface1, curve_or_surface2) 3
DISTANCE is de®ned as one entity having a tangent point
on the offset surface of the other entity. OFFSET_CURVE
and OFFSET_SURFACE are de®ned as having all points of
the curve or surface lying on the offset surface of the other
entity, with offset distance unspeci®ed. The case where the
offset distance is speci®ed can be obtained by combining
the OFFSET_CURVE or OFFSET_SURFACE constraint
with the DISTANCE constraint. The COINCIDENT
constraint is only applicable to similar types of point, curves
or surfaces and derives from the case where offset constraint
distances are zero. It requires all points of one entity to lie on
the other and vice versa. The INCIDENT constraint also
derives from the case where offset distance is zero but
involves dissimilar types of entities and requires all points
of one entity to lie on the other, but not vice versa. The
TANGENT constraint derives from the DISTANCE
constraint in the case where distance is zero. This constraint
requires curves or surfaces to touch at one point where the
curve tangent directions or surface normals are also the
same.
These constraints can all be described mathematically by
variations to the example:
² Distance (d: d $ 0) between curve (C) and surface (S);
TANGENT(C, S) and DISTANCE(C, S, d) de®ned as:
there exists a point C.p in c ˆ C t† and an equivalent
3
Asterisk indicates non-fundamental constraint. The TANGENT_AT_
POINT constraint, derived later, is more general and can be used instead.
23
point S.p in s ˆ S u; v† for which:
uC:p 2 S:pu ˆ d minus 1 dof†
where: C.d is curve unit tangent vector at C.p,
S.n is surface unit normal at S.p,
C:p 2 S:p†´C:d ˆ 0;
C:p 2 S:p† £ S:n ˆ 0;
for TANGENT only: d ˆ 0; C:d´S:n ˆ 0:
5.1.2. Constraints that involve angles between pairs of
entities
Only directions can have angles placed against them.
Directions can occur in geometry as explicit (unit) vectors,
as curve tangents and as surface normals. In the references,
angle constraints are applied between lines, planes, axi-
symmetric geometry and sometimes direction entities. The
angle dimension is typically allowed to vary from zero to
1808. Generalizing the angle constraint to apply to all the
points of generic curves or surfaces results in types of shape
control not previously considered in the references. For
example, specifying all normals of a surface to be perpen-
dicular to a given direction constrains the surface to be
prismatic with respect to that direction. Specifying angle
and offset distance constraints between a curve and a
straight line constrains the curve to be helical. Aside from
this generalization, the only morphological variation gener-
ating further constraint types was looking at limiting angle
values. The constraints are:
² ANGLE (curve_or_surface_or_direction1, curve_or_
surface_or_direction2, angle_value)
² SAME_DIRECTION (line_or_plane_or_direction1,
line_or_plane _or_direction2)
² RIGHT_ANGLE (curve_or_surface_or_direction1,
curve_or_surface_or_direction2) 4
The SAME_DIRECTION constraint derives from the
ANGLE constraint when the angle dimension is zero. It
controls one more degree of freedom than the ANGLE
constraint. The RIGHT_ANGLE (perpendicular) constraint,
resulting from an angle dimension of 908, is commonly used
but is excluded by the criteria of this paper because it does
not take away more degrees of freedom than the ANGLE
constraint and does not result in a different number of multiple
solutions. It is included only because it is commonly used.
Although the SAME_DIRECTION and RIGHT_ANGLE
constraints are equivalent to PARALLEL and PERPENDI-
CULAR constraints from the literature, the present terms
are used to avoid confusion which occurs with the case
PARALLEL (planar_surface1, straight_line2) which has
two interpretations in the literature. The SAME_DIRECTION
constraint is only applicable to straight lines and planes
4
Indicates non-fundamental constraint.
24 B. Bettig, J. Shah / Computer-Aided Design 33 (2001) 17±33
A Create point P1 incident with L1 and B and point P2
A
B incident with L2 and B
α L1
P1 L1
d3
d1 P2 C P1
d1
L2
d2
(a) a Procedure 1 combination (b) a Procedure 2 combination
Fig. 5. Arrangement of entities and constraints for procedures.
because these are the only curve and surface types with
constant tangent and normal directions.
5.1.3. Distance constraints on resolved geometry
Not applicable for arbitrary geometry.
5.1.4. Angle constraints on resolved directions
Not applicable for arbitrary geometry.
5.1.5. Unary constraints
Unary constraints involve only one geometric entity and
are always expressible mathematically as an assignment of
a literal value to a variable (e.g. ªpoint1x ˆ 3.0º). For
arbitrary geometry, these constraints can only be used to
position entities with respect to a coordinate system to
stop rigid body motion. Two constraint types are:
FIXED (entity)
FIXED_POINT (curve_or_surface, point_literal) 5
For the ®rst one, the ®xed entity is forced to keep its
present position with respect to the coordinate frame. The
FIXED_POINT constraint forces a curve or surface to be
incident with a speci®ed point in space with respect to the
coordinate frame.
5.1.6. N-ary distance-based constraints
N-ary constraints are found by two procedures that place
combinations of geometric entities and constraints in parti-
cular arrangements. These procedures are used because they
are able to identify the n-ary constraints appearing in the
literature. These procedures are:
Procedure 1Ðsee Fig. 5 (a)
Create 3 entities A, B, C (considering all combinations of
point, curve and surface)
Create 2 distances d1, d2 between A/B, B/C (considering:
(i) distance applies at one point and (ii) distance applies
for all points of curves and surfaces)
Construct lines L1, L2 coincident with measured
distances d1, d2
Create angle a between L1 and L2
5
Not a fundamental constraint.
B
Create distance d3 between P1 and P2
Look for combinations of d1, d2, d3 and a at limiting
α values, that can not be represented by existing constraints
c
Procedure 2Ðsee Fig. 5(b)
Create 2 entities A, B (considering all combinations of
point, curve and surface) and direction c
Create distance d1 between A/B (considering: (i) distance
applies at one point and (ii) distance applies for all points
of curves and surfaces)
Construct line L1 coincident with measured distances d1
Create angle a between L1 and c
Look for combinations of d1 and a at limiting values, that
can not be represented by existing constraints.
The result of these procedures is n-ary constraints that can
not be represented as combinations of binary constraints.
The ®rst three can not be represented because they require
more than one constraint to be true for all points of a curve
or surface. The binary constraints only consider cases where
a single constraint is true for all points a curve or surface.
The last four constraints can not be represented as combina-
tions of binary constraints because they involve limits,
which can not be represented using binary constraints.
The constraints are:
² TRANSLATED (entity1, entity2, direction, distance_
value)
² ROTATED (entity1, entity2, axis_curve, angle_value)
² SYMMETRIC (entity1, entity2, re¯ection_entity)
² TANGENT_AT_POINT (curve_or_surface1, curve_or_
surface2, point)
² TANGENT_AT_CURVE (surface1, surface2, curve)
² CURVE_POINT_ DIRECTION (curve, point, direction)
² SURFACE_POINT_NORMAL (surface, point, direction)
The TRANSLATED constraint is obtained from the
second procedure when A and B are the same type of entity,
the distance measure applies to all points of A and B and
a ˆ 0: The ROTATED constraint is obtained from the ®rst
procedure when A and C are the same entity type, B is a
curve, the distance measures apply to all points of A and C,
d1 ˆ d2 and d3 ˆ 0: The SYMMETRIC constraint is
obtained from the ®rst procedure when A and C are the
same entity type, the distance measures apply to all
points of A and C, d1 ˆ d2; d3 ˆ 0 and a ˆ 1808: The
TANGENT_AT_POINT constraint is obtained from the
®rst procedure when A and C are curves or surfaces, B is
a point, the distance measures apply at a single point of each
curve or surface, a ˆ 1808; d1 ! 0 and d2 ! 0. The
TANGENT_AT_CURVE constraint is obtained from the
®rst procedure when A and C are surfaces, B is a curve,
the distances measures apply at all points of B, a ˆ 1808;
 B. Bettig, J. Shah / Computer-Aided Design 33 (2001) 17±33 25

d
FIXED_IN_X_DIR (linear_geometry)*
2 2 FIXED_IN_Y_DIR (linear_geometry)*
FIXED_IN_Z_DIR (linear_geometry)*
C1
C1
C2 C2 The resolved directions are the line direction and surface
normal, which can be set directly here. The FIXED_IN_X/
TRANSLATED( C1, C2, d, 2) OFFSET_CURVE(C1, C2) Y_DIR constraints are equivalent to ªHORIZONTALº/
DISTANCE(C1, C2, 2)
ªVERTICALº constraints in 2D.
(a) (b)
5.2.6. N-ary distance-based constraints:
Fig. 6. TRANSLATED constraint versus OFFSET_CURVE constraint in Same as in Section 5.1.
2D.
5.3. Conics and selected cyclides
d1 ! 0 and d2 ! 0. The CURVE_POINT_DIRECTION The ªConics and Selected Cyclidesº category provides
and SURFACE_POINT_NORMAL constraints are entities with constant or uniformly changing curvatures
obtained from the second procedure when A is a curve or and constraints that allow parameters such as radius to be
surface, B is a point, d1 ! 0 and a ˆ 0: Fig. 6 contrasts the set directly. Only entities from STEP Part 42 [23] are
TRANSLATED constraint with the OFFSET_CURVE considered.
constraint for planar curves.
5.3.1. Constraints derived from distances between pairs of
5.2. Linear geometry
points, curves and surfaces
The ªLinear Geometryº sub-group de®nes straight line Same as in Section 5.1.
and plane entities, as well as related constraints. The
straight-line entity has four degrees of freedom and is 5.3.2. Constraints that involve angles between pairs of
de®ned here as a point (with one coordinate chosen arbitra- entities
rily but carefully) and a direction. The plane entity has three Same as in Section 5.1.
degrees of freedom and is de®ned here in terms of a point
(with two coordinates chosen carefully and arbitrarily) and a 5.3.3. Distance constraints on resolved geometry
normal direction. There are only a few constraint types The resolved geometrical entities for conics and the
unique to linear geometry. selected cyclides are the center or focal points of circles,
ellipses, hyperbolas, parabolas, spheres, cones and torii as
5.2.1. Constraints derived from distances between pairs of well as the axes and semi-axes of ellipses, hyperbolas,
points, curves and surfaces parabolas, cones and cylinders. The constraints are required
Same as in Section 5.1. here to access the resolved geometry to use it for position-
ing. These constraints are different from the constraints in
5.3.1 because the constraints in 5.3.1 refer only to the
5.2.2. Constraints that involve angles between pairs of
physical points, curves and surfaces.
entities
Same as in Section 5.1. LOCATING_POINT_DISTANCE (conic_or_cyclide1,
entity2, distance_value) 7
5.2.3. Distance constraints on resolved geometry COINCIDENT_LOCATING_POINT (conic_or_cyclide1,
Nothing applicable in Section 5.2. entity2)
AXIS_DISTANCE (conic_or_cyclide1, entity2, distance
5.2.4. Angle constraints on resolved directions _value)*
ANGLE, SAME_DIRECTION and RIGHT_ANGLE COINCIDENT_AXIS (conic_or_cyclide1, entity2)
constraints have been de®ned in Section 5.1. SEMI_AXIS1_DISTANCE (non_circular_conic1, entity2,
distance_value)*
5.2.5. Unary constraints COINCIDENT_SEMI_AXIS1 (non_circular_conic1,
Constraints that can be represented as assignments state- entity2)
ments on linear geometry are:
5.3.4. Angle constraints on resolved directions
FIXED_DIRECTION (linear_geometry, direction_ Again, these constraints access resolved geometry but to
literal) 6 constrain directions this time. The resolved directions are
the axis and semi-axis directions of these shapes. The
6
These are non-fundamental constraints. They can be expressed using
7
other constraint types. Asterisks denote non-fundamental constraints.
26 B. Bettig, J. Shah / Computer-Aided Design 33 (2001) 17±33
constraints here can all be described in terms of other
constraints by using the COINCIDENT_AXIS and
COINCIDENT_SEMI_AXIS constraints along with an
auxiliary line.
AXIS_ANGLE (conic_or_cylide1, entity_with_direction2,
angle_value)*
PARALLEL_AXIS (conic_or_cylide1, entity_with_
direction2)*
PERPENDICULAR_AXIS (conic_or_cylide1, entity_
with_direction2) *
SEMI_AXIS1_ANGLE (non_circular_conic1, entity_
with_direction2, angle_value)*
PARALLEL_SEMI_AXIS1 (non_circular_conic1,
entity_with_direction2)*
PERPENDICULAR_SEMI_AXIS1 (non_circular_conic1,
entity_with_direction2)*
5.3.5. Unary constraints
The intrinsic parameters that are used to de®ne these
shapes include the radius, semi-axes, focal distance and
minor and major radii of these entities. These constraints
provide a means to set these values directly.
RADIUS (circle_cylindrical_conical_or_spherical_
surface, radius_value)
SEMI_AXIS1 (ellipse_or_hyperbola, semi_axis_value)
SEMI_AXIS2 (ellipse_or_hyperbola, semi_axis_value)
FOCAL_DISTANCE (parabola, focal_distance_value)
SEMI_ANGLE (conical_surface, semi_angle_value)
MAJOR_RADIUS (toroidal_surface, radius_value)
MINOR_RADIUS (toroidal_surface, radius_value)
5.3.6. N-ary distance-based constraints:
Same as in Section 5.1.
5.4. Freeform curves and surfaces
The ªFreeform Curves and Surfacesº group allows for
freeform shapes with arbitrary curvatures and any number
of points of in¯ection. In STEP, this only includes b-spline
curves and surfaces.
5.4.1. Constraints derived from distances between pairs of
points, curves and surfaces
Same as in Section 5.1. The COINCIDENT and
SURFACE_POINT_NORMAL constraints can be used to
prescribe an interpolation.
5.4.2. Constraints that involve angles between pairs of
entities
Same as in Section 5.1.
5.4.3. Distance constraints on resolved geometry
These simply reference the component points of the curve
or surface, to relate them to other points of the shape.
CURVE_CONTROL_POINTS (b_spline_curve,
array_of_points)
SURFACE_CONTROL_POINTS (b_spline_surface,
array_of_points)
5.4.4. Angle constraints on resolved directions
Not applicable for freeform geometry.
5.4.5. Unary constraints
Intrinsic variable values that can be set directly, other
than control point positions, are the knot and weighting
values. The corresponding constraint types are:
CURVE_KNOT_VALUES (array_of_numeric_expres-
sions)
SURFACE_KNOT_VALUES (array_of_numeric_
expressions)
CURVE_WEIGHTING_VALUES (array_of_numeric_
expressions)
SURFACE_WEIGHTING_VALUES (array_of_numeric_
expressions)
5.4.6. N-ary distance-based constraints
CURVE_CONTINUITY_AT_POINT (bspline_curve1,
bspline_curve2, point, degree)
SURFACE_CONTINUITY_AT_CURVE (bspline_
surface1, bspline_surface2, bspline_curve, degree)
These constraints follow as per the TANGENT_AT_POINT
and TANGENT_AT_CURVE constraints in 5.1.6, but
apply to b-spline curves and surfaces. They allow the speci-
®cation of the types of continuity conditions typically
applied at the boundaries between adjacent b-spline curves
or surfaces.
5.5. Sets
The ªSetsº group allows for the notion of spaces in which
geometrical entities are embedded. The positions of entities
are ®xed within the space, so that the have no degrees-of-
freedom of their own. Only the degrees of freedom of the
set must be resolved. A small number of set types are
considered necessary for engineering problems from the
in®nite number possible. These are the entity types of this
group:
² Rigid (Euclidean) setsÐthese have six degrees-of-free-
dom (three rotations and three translations) minus the
number of degrees of invariance. For instance, if the
geometric entities in the set are arranged axisymmetri-
cally, only ®ve degrees-of-freedom need to be resolved
(two rotations and three translations).
 B. Bettig, J. Shah / Computer-Aided Design 33 (2001) 17±33
Two Direction Scalable (2D) Set: S1
IN_SET(S1, P1) ... IN_SET(S1, P6)
IN_SET(S1, C1) ... IN_SET(S1, C5)
INCIDENT(P1, L2)
TANGENT_AT_POINT (C5, L2, P7)
DISTANCE(P1, L1, 4)
DISTANCE(P6, L1, 22)
DISTANCE(C1, L2, 10)
Fig. 7. Scalable set (2D).
² Scalable setsÐthese have seven degrees-of-freedom
(three rotations, three translations and one scaling
factor)
² Three Direction Scalable setsÐthese have nine degrees-
of-freedom (three rotations, three translations and three
independent scaling factors)
² Skewable setsÐthese have 12 degrees-of-freedom (three
rotations, three translations, three scaling factors and
three skewing factors). This is the most general set and
allows for all linear transformations
The constraints of this group simply relate geometric
entities to set entities, ®xing the position of the entity within
the set:
IN_SET (set1, entity1)
Existing constraint types relate geometric entities in the
set to geometric entities outside the set. Mathematically
this is equivalent to substituting the transformed vectors
(points and directions of geometric entities) in place of
the original vectors. (For example, for DISTANCE
(point1, point2, d): jp1 2 p2j ˆ d becomes jp1 2 T p2†j ˆ
d where p2 is in a set whose type and parameter values yield
a transformation T( ).) Fig. 7 shows the use of the IN_SET
constraint. Here the points and curves of the ªlogoº can be
positioned and stretched uniformly using the DISTANCE
constraints.
5.6. Mappings
The ªMappingsº group allows for specifying mapped
relationships between pairs of similar entities. The most
typical application is to have copies of geometrical shapes
positioned in other parts of a model. Another application is
in relating 2D entities positioned in 2D space to 3D entities
in 3D space. An in®nite number of types of mappings are
possible but only a small number are useful in engineering
design. The entities of this group are:
Within the same dimensionality:
² Euclidean MappingÐsix DOF (three translations and
three rotations)
27
22
C1
L1
P2 P3 P4 P5
10
C5 P6
P1 C2 C3
P7 L2
4
C4
Between dimensionalities:
² Linear MappingЮve DOF (two translations and three
rotations)
² Rotational MappingЮve DOF (three translations and
two rotations)
² Helical MappingÐsix DOF (two translations, three
rotations, one helix angle)
The Euclidean Mapping simply allows for translations and
rotations within the same dimensionality of space. The
Linear Mapping provides for in®nite prismatic extrusions
of 2D shapes to 3D space. The Rotational Mapping and
Helical Mapping provide for 2D descriptions of axi-
symmetric and helical shapes. The new constraints simply
relate one entity to another through the mapping:
MAP (mapping, entity1, entity2)
The relationship is declarative and any of the elements
of the constraint can be used to control the other. An
example using the Linear Mapping transformation is
shown in Fig. 8. Here the dimensions on the 2D cross-
section determine the positions of lines C1, C2, C4, C5,
C6 and C8. Surfaces S1 and S2 are dimensioned with
respect to the base allowing the transformation M1to be
determined, given the positions of C1 and C2. The posi-
tions of surfaces S4, S5, S6 and S8 then follow from the
positions of C4, C5, C6 and C8 and the transformation
M1. An interesting feature of this example is that the
positions of lines C3 and C7 and the reference dimension
ª(6.36)º in the 2D cross-section are actually dependent on
the dimension ª9º and the position of surface S3 in the 3D
part.
An EXPRESS schema and the mathematical equations
for each constraint type of Section 5 are given in Bettig
and Shah [25].
6. Discussion
Table A1 in Appendix A provides a comparison of the
derived constraint types with the constraint types available
28 B. Bettig, J. Shah / Computer-Aided Design 33 (2001) 17±33
S5
S8
S7
S6
S4
S3 S2
45˚
2
9 MAP(M1, C1, S1) ... MAP(M1, C8, S8)
Fig. 8. Linear mapping example.
in selected schemas and solvers: (i) the current ISO/STEP
parameterization and geometric constraints working docu-
ment [1]; (ii) ENGEN [2]; and (iii) DCM 3D [3]. The main
observation is that the constraints of the present taxonomy
are more comprehensive and more generally applicable
because of being systematically derived. The present
taxonomy includes offset curves and surfaces, which are
not included in the others. It includes distance and
angle constraints that are applicable for all types of points,
curves and surfaces thus making it easier to modify a curve
or surface type. It also includes useful generalizations of
sets.
ENGEN often requires constraints to directly reference
the resolved geometry (or sub-geometry) of the element
which is to be constrained, rather than the element itself.
(E.g. Angle to a cylindrical surface axis is ANGLE
(cyl_surf1.position.axis, other_entity, angle_value) rather
than AXIS_ANGLE (cyl_surf1, other_entity, angle),
where `.' indicates a reference to a sub-geometry). The
current ISO/STEP working document has a similar situation
with the DIRECTION constraint. These types of constraints
allow the total number of constraint types to be reduced
because different types of geometrical entities do not require
their own constraint type. On the other hand, referencing
sub-geometry of constrained geometry might make
implementation more dif®cult.
This issue repeats itself with setting parameters such as
radius. It is possible to have a different type of constraint for
each parameter or alternatively, to have user equations
which reference the parameter directly. Having different
constraint types for each type of parameter increases the
number of constraint types necessary but might make
implementation more dif®cult.
ENGEN does not seem to support making axi-
symmetric shapes coaxial. This does not seem possible,
even indirectly.
7
2 2
C3 C7
S1 C4 C6
(6.36) C8
C5
C2
2
C1
Linear Mapping: M1
DISTANCE( C2, C4, 2)
DISTANCE( C6, C8, 2)
DISTANCE( C2, C8, 7)
DISTANCE( C1, C5, 2)
COINCIDENT(C3, C7)
RIGHT_ANGLE(C1, C2)
D-Cubed has opposite meanings of PARALLEL (line_x,
plane_y) and PERPENDICULAR (line_x, plane_y) than
ENGEN and the current ISO/STEP working document.
The FIXED, FIXED_POINT and FIXED_DIRECTION
are useful for observing the kinematics of assemblies. They
are also necessary when determining over/under-constraint
of more than one free-¯oating body. Rigid body motion
can be automatically considered (eliminated) for the ®rst
body, but it is otherwise impossible to determine whether
subsequent bodies are supposed to be free-¯oating or are
simply under-constrained.
Comparison of the present taxonomy with the other
schemas shows that it includes almost all the constraints
from other schemas as well as others. Some constraints
are not included in the present taxonomy however.
The CURVE_LENGTH and CURVE_LENGTH_WITH_
DIMENSION constraints from the current ISO/STEP
working document and LENGTH_EQUAL and LENGTH_
RATIO from ENGEN are not included because these
ªintegrationalº constraints were considered out of scope.
The CENTROID constraint from ENGEN is another type
of ªintegrationalº constraint that is out of scope. The
PLANE ANGLE constraint from D-Cubed is an n-ary
constraint for which an axis direction must be speci®ed
about which the rotation takes place. This constraint is not
included because it is possible to represent this situation by
introducing two additional ANGLE constraints between the
constrained entities and the axis direction. One other poten-
tial type of constraint type, MID_POINT (entity1, entity2,
entity3) where an entity is directly between two others has
not been included. Although it appears in Procedure 1 of
Section 5.1.6, it is possible to represent this constraint using
other constraint types and additional speci®cation of solu-
tion selection. Barring oversights in examining the morpho-
logical variations, the ªcomprehensivenessº requirement set
out in the Problem Statement is met.
 B. Bettig, J. Shah / Computer-Aided Design 33 (2001) 17±33
(a) DISTANCE constraint between curves
Fig. 9. Two ways of representing the distance between curves.
Comparison of the constraint types with each other shows
that the set is consistent, in that no constraints can be used in
place of others, except for constraint types marked with
asterisks. There is also another exception shown in Fig. 9.
This case pertains to DISTANCE constraints to curves or
surfaces. For curves, introducing a point and direction
on each curve with a CURVE_POINT_DIRECTION
constraint and making an auxiliary line to be incident
with the point and perpendicular to the tangent direction,
duplicates the DISTANCE constraint. Similarly, intro-
ducing a point and direction on surfaces and using a
SURFACE_POINT_NORMAL constraint duplicates the
distance constraint. Because of the common usage of the
distance constraint, and the impracticality of the latter set of
constraints, the distance constraint should be kept as ®rst
introduced.
The third requirement, that the constraint set be intuitive
to use by the geometry designer is also met. Considering the
offset surfaces of geometric entities, one can easily imagine
most of the distance-based constraints. Angle constraints are
only between directions, curve tangents and surface
normals. Constraints against resolved geometry (e.g. axis
of cylinder) are explicitly indicated. Constraints against
sub-geometry (e.g. point used to de®ne a plane) are not
necessary and not allowed. The transformation-based
constraints are used simply by placing geometric entities
in sets. Distance and angle-based constraints between set
members and non-set members determine the transforma-
tion parameters. These constraints are all at the abstraction
level used by the designer.
A remaining issue important for both representation and
solving of parametric models is how to handle multiple
solutions. Multiple solutions are unavoidable because
geometric constraints are nonlinear when expressed as
algebraic equations. The usual approach is to include
additional attributes with constraints or to use heuristics
based on the initial con®guration of the geometry. The
problem with attached attributes is that some multiple
solutions are not attributable to a single constraint. The
problem with heuristics is that the designer might have
different intents for situations that appear similar to the
solver. Another suggestion is to let the user choose the
29
(b) equivalent set of constraints
desired solution through the user interface, but this approach
would be too time consuming for the user, even for small
problems. The problem of how to represent selection of
multiple solutions must still be resolved.
7. Conclusions
The schema presented here is systematically derived. It
de®nes general constraint types that apply uniformly to
points, curves and surfaces. Some constraint types are
given which are not in other schemas. Since all commonly
used constraint types are included and all constraint types
with equivalent mathematical basis are given, the schema is
considered comprehensive. Since, combinations of other
constraint types (except for a noted exception) cannot
duplicate constraint types, the constraint set is considered
to be consistent. Since the constraints are all at the level of
abstraction used by geometry designers, the constraint set is
considered to be intuitive to use. These requirements make
the representation suitable for data exchange, development
of neutral APIs to constraint solvers as well as for use by
designers.
Acknowledgements
This research has been made possible through funding by
NSF, grants DMI-9522971 and DMI-9812977. An earlier
version of this paper was presented at the ASME Design
Automation Conference, Las Vegas.
Appendix A. Comparison of various geometric
constraint schemas
This appendix summarizes the explicit geometric
constraints derived in the text and compares them against
other sets of explicit geometric constraints from the litera-
ture review. Note that Ref. [1] is a working document still
undergoing development (Table A1).
Table A1 30
Comparison of speci®c geometric constraint types from selected schemas

Present taxonomy (this paper) Current ISO/STEP [1] ENGEN [2] DCM 3D [3] Comments

1. DISTANCE 1. (speci®c types) 1. (speci®c types) 1. DISTANCE Though D-Cubed has not
To point POINT_DISTANCE, POINT_DISTANCE_ POINT_DISTNCE, To point implemented constraints for all
WITH_DIMENSION (directed only wrt POINT_DISTNCE_RATIO types curves and surfaces, the
curves or surfaces) (directed only wrt line or plane) meaning of the constraints can be
To curve N/A N/A To curve extrapolatedÐnote how DCM 2D
To surface N/A N/A To surface handles distance constraints on
ellipses.
2. COINCIDENT 2. COINCIDENT 2. (speci®c types) 2. COINCIDENT
Point point POINT_COIN-CIDENCE Point
Curve curve COLLINEAR (lines) Curve
Surfaces surfaces COPLANAR (planes) Surfaces

3. INCIDENT 3. INCIDENCE 3. (speci®c types) 3. COINCIDENT D-Cubed also uses the term
Point and curve point and curve POINT_ON_CURVE Point and curve COINCIDENT for ªIncidentº.
Point and surface point and surface N/A Point and surface
Curve and surface curve and surface COPLANAR (line and plane) Curve and surface

4. TANGENT 4. TANGENT 4. (speci®c types) 4. TANGENT [1] provides an enumerated type to

Curves curves TANGENT, MULTIPLE Curves indicate whether the tangency is at a
Curve and surface curve and surface TANGENT Curve and surface point, curve or surface.
Surfaces surfaces N/A Surfaces
N/A

5. OFFSET_CURVE (with 5. PARALLEL/PARALLEL_WITH_DIM/ 5. PARALLEL_ WITH_DISP 5. PARALLEL (with OFFSET_CURVE/SURFACE

DISTANCE) PARALLEL_OFFSET/ lines DISTANCE) (with DISTANCE) are
Curves PARALLEL_OFFSET_WITH_DIMENSION line and plane Lines generalizations of
Curve from surface lines/curves Line and plane PARALLEL_WITH_DIMENSION
line and plane

6. OFFSET_SURFACE (with 6. PARALLEL/PARALLEL_ WITH_DIM/ 6. PARALLEL_ WITH_DISP 6. PARALLEL (with

DISTANCE) PARALLEL_OFFSET/ N/A DISTANCE)
B. Bettig, J. Shah / Computer-Aided Design 33 (2001) 17±33

Surface from curve PARALLEL_OFFSET planes N/A

Surfaces _WITH_DIMENSION Planes
N/A
planes/surfaces

7. ANGLE 7. ANGLE, ANGLE_ 7. ANGLE 7. ANGLE, PLANE_ANGLE ANGLE in present schema applies
To curve WITH_DIM to line to line To line to curves and surfaces in general.
To surface to plane to plane To plane Some schemas do not allow angles
To direction, vector N/A to direction, vector N/A against explicit direction vectors.

8. SAME_DIRECTION 8. (speci®c types) 8. PARALLEL 8. PARALLEL

As line as plane PARALLEL (to line) to line to plane To line
As direction, vector PARALLEL (to plane) to direction, vector To plane
DIRECTION (to direction, vector) N/A
Table A1 (continued)

Present taxonomy (this paper) Current ISO/STEP [1] ENGEN [2] DCM 3D [3] Comments

9. RIGHT_ANGLE 9. PERPENDICULAR 9. PERPENDICULAR 9. PERPENDICULAR

To curve to line to line To line
To surface to plane to plane To plane
To direction, vector N/A to direction, vector N/A

10. (speci®c types) 10. (speci®c types) 10. (speci®c types) 10. (speci®c types) AXIS_DISTANCE and
LOCATING_POINT_DIST, N/A CONCENTRIC CONCENTRIC LOCATING_ POINT_DIST are
COINC_ LOCATING_ POINT COAXIAL N/A CONCENTRIC desirable because they are heavily
AXIS_DIST, COINC_AXIS N/A N/A N/A used in engineering; ENGEN does
COINC_ SEMI_AXIS1 not seem to support co-axiallity.

11. Axis Angles AXIS_ANGLE, 11. Axis Angles 11. Axis Angles 11. Axis Angles DCM ANGLE constraint is also
PARALLEL_AXIS, N/A N/A ANGLE used against curves and surfaces
PERPEND'R_AXIS N/A N/A N/A with axes; ENGEN ANGLE
SEMI_AXIS1_ANGLE, constraint and [1] DIRECTION
PARALLEL_SEMI_AXIS1, constraint directly reference
PERPEND'R_SEMI_AXIS1 direction entity of axis of
constrained shape;
12. Parameter values 12. Parameter values 12. Parameter values 12. Parameter values
RADIUS RADIUS, RADIUS_WITH_ RADIUS_EQUAL, RADIUS
SEMI_AXIS1 DIMENSION RADIUS_ RATIO N/A
SEMI_AXIS2 FOCAL_DIST N/A N/A N/A
SEMI_AXIS MAJOR_RAD N/A N/A N/A
MINOR_RAD N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A

13. (speci®c types) 13. (speci®c types) 13. N/A 13. (speci®c types)
FIXED, FIXED_POINT FIXED_POINT FIXED
FIXED_DIR-ECTION, N/A N/A
B. Bettig, J. Shah / Computer-Aided Design 33 (2001) 17±33

FIXED_IN_X,Y,Z_DIR

14. SYMMETRIC 14. SYMMETRY 14. (speci®c types) 14. N/A

about point N/A RADIAL_SYMMETRY (2D
only)
About axis curve About axis line AXIAL_SYMMETRY (2D
About surface About plane only)
N/A

15. other n-ary 15. other n-ary 15. other n-ary 15. other n-ary
TRANSLATED N/A N/A N/A
ROTATED
TANGENT_AT_POINT
TANGNT_AT_CURVE
CURVE_POINT_DIR
31
 32

Table A1 (continued)

Present taxonomy (this paper) Current ISO/STEP [1] ENGEN [2] DCM 3D [3] Comments

SURFACE_POINT_
NORMAL

16. integrational 16. integrational 16. integrational 16. integrational

N/A CURVE_LENGTH, LENGTH_EQUAL, N/A
N/A CURVE_LENGTH_ LENGTH_RATIO N/A
WITH_DIM CENTROID
N/A

17. b-spline constraints 17. b-spline constraints N/A 17. b-spline constraints N/A 17. b-spline constr'nts N/A
CURVE_CNTL_PNTS,
SURF_CNTL_POINTS
CURVE_KNOT/
WEIGHT_VALUES,
SURFACE_KNOT/
WEIGHT_VALUES
CURVE_CONTINUITY_
AT_POINT
SURFACE_CONTINUITY_
AT_CURVE
B. Bettig, J. Shah / Computer-Aided Design 33 (2001) 17±33

18. IN_SET 18. N/A 18. N/A 18. SET In present taxonomy there are
entities to represent various types of
transformations.

19. MAP 19. N/A 19. N/A 19. N/A SETs are currently being addressed
[1]
 B. Bettig, J. Shah / Computer-Aided Design 33 (2001) 17±33
References
[1] Pratt MJ. Product data representation and exchange: integrated
application resource: Parametrization and geometric constraints for
explicit geometric product models (working document), ISO TC184/
SC4/WG12 N440 (ISO/WD 10303-108:1999(E)), 1st November
1999.
[2] SCRA. Phase 4 Data Model for ENGEN, Technical Report Version
4.6, South Carolina Research Authority, Charleston, SC, 20 July
1997.
[3] D-Cubed. The 3D DCM Manual Version 2.0.0 D-Cubed Ltd.
Cambridge, England, 1999.
[4] Kramer GA. Solving geometric constraint systems. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 1992.
[5] Shah J, Rogers M. Assembly modeling as an extension of design by
features (special issue on advances in CAD). Research in Engineering
Design 1993;5:218±37.
[6] Balakrishnan G. Constraint based approach to product modeling, MS
thesis, Arizona State University, 1993.
[7] Ali A. Declarative Approach to Form Feature De®nition, M.S. Thesis,
Arizona State University, 1994.
[8] Dedhia H. Interactive De®nition of Form Features, MS thesis,
Arizona State University, 1997.
[9] CleÂment A, Desroches A, Riviere A. Theory and practice of 3D
tolerancing for assembly. In: Proceedings of CIRP Seminar on
Computer-Aided Tolerancing, Penn State University, USA, 1991.
[10] Kandikjan T, Shah J. A Computational model for geometric dimen-
sions and tolerances consistent with engineering practice. In: Proceed-
ings of 1998 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, 18th
Computers In Engineering Conference, DETC98/CIE-5710, Atlanta,
GA.
[11] Pierra G, Ait-Ameur Y, Besnard F, Girard P, Potier J-C. A general
framework for parametric product model within STEP and parts
library. In: Proceedings of European Conference Product Data Tech-
nology, London, 18±19 April 1996.
[12] Pratt MJ. Requirements analysis for an explicit constraints schema for
STEP, ISO TC184/SC4/WG3 N502 (T1/Parametrics), National Insti-
tute of Standards and Technology, Manufacturing Systems Integra-
tion Division, Gaithersburg, MD, May 1996.
[13] Bouma W, Fudos I, Hoffmann C, Cai J, Paige R. Geometric constraint
solver. Computer-Aided Design 1995;27(6):487±501.
[14] Shimizu S, Inoue K, Numao M. An ATMS-based geometric
constraint solver for 3D CAD, Proceedings of Third Int. Conf. On
Tools for AI, San Jose, CA, November 1991. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE
Computer Society Press, 1991.
[15] Owen JC. Algebraic solution for geometry from dimensional
constraints, Proceedings of the symposium on solid modeling founda-
tions and CAD/CAM applications, Austin, TX, 5±7 June 1991. New
York: ACM press, 1991.
[16] Light R, Gossard D. Modi®cation of geometric models through varia-
tional geometry. Computer-Aided Design 1982;14(4):209±14.
33
[17] Aldefeld B. Variation of geometries based on a geometric-reasoning
method. Computer -Aided Design 1988;20(3):117±26.
[18] Suzuki H, Hidetoshi A, Kimura F. Geometric constraints and
reasoning for geometrical CAD systems. Computers and Graphics
1990;14(2):211±24.
[19] Latham RS, Middleditch AE. Connectivity analysis: a tool for
processing geometric constraints. Computer-Aided Design 1996;
28(11):917±28.
[20] Lee JY, Kim K. Geometric reasoning for knowledge-based para-
metric design using graph representation. Computer-Aided Design
1996;28(10):831±41.
[21] Anderl R, Mendgen R. Modelling with constraints: theoretical foun-
dation and application. Computer-Aided Design 1996;28(3):155±68.
[22] Chung J, Schussel M. Technical evaluation of variational and para-
metric design. Computers in Engineering 1990;1:289±98.
[23] ISO, Industrial automation systems and integrationÐproduct data
representation and exchange (STEP) ISO 10303 (TC184/SC4), Inter-
national Organization for Standardization, 1994.
[24] ASME, Dimensioning and Tolerancing, ASME Y14.5M-1994, Amer-
ican Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, 1994.
[25] Bettig B, Shah J. Systematic Derivation of Geometric Constraints for
Shape De®nition in CAD, Technical Report ASU/DAL/constraints/
98-1, Design Automation Lab, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineer-
ing, Arizona State University, 1998.
Bernie Bettig is an assistant professor of
Mechanical Engineering at Michigan Techno-
logical University. His interest is in geometric
problems in computer-aided design and manu-
facturing and CAD software architectures. His
degrees are from Arizona State University
(PhD, 1999) and the University of Manitoba
(MSc, 1995; BSc, 1990). He also has industrial
experience as an aerospace design engineer.
Jami Shah is Professor of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering and Director of the
Design Automation Lab at Arizona State
University. He holds a PhD from the Ohio
State University, 1984. His research includes
geometric modeling, features technology,
manufacturing planning, and information
modeling.