Decomposition Plans for Geometric Constraint Systems, Part I: Performance Measures for CAD

101Citations
Citations of this article
29Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

A central issue in dealing with geometric constraint systems for CAD/CAM/CAE is the generation of an optimal decomposition plan that not only aids efficient solution, but also captures design intent and supports conceptual design. Though complex, this issue has evolved and crystallized over the past few years, permitting us to take the next important step: in this paper, we formalize, motivate and explain the decomposition-recombination (DR)-planning problem as well as several performance measures by which DR-planning algorithms can be analyzed and compared. These measures include: generality, validity, completeness, Church-Rosser property, complexity, best- and worst-choice approximation factors, (strict) solvability preservation, ability to deal with underconstrained systems, and ability to incorporate conceptual design decompositions specified by the designer. The problem and several of the performance measures are formally defined here for the first time - they closely reflect specific requirements of CAD/CAM applications. The clear formulation of the problem and performance measures allow us to precisely analyze and compare existing DR-planners that use two well-known types of decomposition methods: SR (constraint shape recognition) and MM (generalized maximum matching) on constraint graphs. This analysis additionally serves to illustrate and provide intuitive substance to the newly formalized measures. In Part II of this article, we use the new performance measures to guide the development of a new DR-planning algorithm which excels with respect to these performance measures. © 2001 Academic Press.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hoffman, C. M., Lomonosov, A., & Sitharam, M. (2001). Decomposition Plans for Geometric Constraint Systems, Part I: Performance Measures for CAD. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 31(4), 367–408. https://doi.org/10.1006/jsco.2000.0402

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free