Design Rule Checker for Sheet Metal

Components using Medial Axis Transforms and

Geometric Reasoning
Raj Radhakrishnan, Araya Amsalu, Mehran Kamran and B.O. Nnaji

Automation and Robotics Laboratory

Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Abstract
Design Rule Checker is an essential component of design automation and for
making design, process planning and manufacturing concurrent. In this paper,
a set of algorithms are presented for detecting design violations in sheet metal
components. Violations in sheet metal components occur when holes, slots,
or other features are too close to one another. These violations, if undetected
during design, increase the design life cycle of the product. Thus it is very
essential to detect, if not eliminate these violations at the early stages of design.
Typically sheet metal components have a number of features serving various
purposes which include ventilation and fastening. As the contour of the parts
gets complicated and the number of features on the sheet metal part increases
it is dicult to check the rules exhaustively as it may lead to combinatorial
explosion.
1
 The algorithm presented here, uses Medial axis transformation to decom-
pose a given domain thus preventing a combinatorial explosion, and also pro-
vides a means to integrate the rule checker with a design adviser.

1 Introduction
Industry is in continual search for ways of reducing the cost of manufacturing of the
products in its realm. For years eort has been concentrated on implementing the
latest production methods and increased use of automation.
Many analyses of product costs in the development cycle indicate about 70%
of the total product cost is already committed by the time the design is completed
though less than 10% is spent. This indicates that bringing manufacturing consider-
ations to bear on the design process is the logical venue to reduce cost and product
realization time. As designers have become estranged from manufacturing knowledge
due to specialization, incorporating manufacturing considerations into the design has
become more and more dicult. With most of today's design conducted on CAD
systems, using computerized tools that will provide input on manufacturability and
other lifetime issues in the design stage helps overcome this diculty.
Manufacturing issues can be brought to the design stage through manufactura-
bility evaluation of the design. In evaluating manufacturability the design is checked
against the process capability as applied to the material used. The common practice
in industry is to express the critical relationships between design requirements and
process capability attributes as design rules. Thus checking the design against these
rules,i.e., design rule checking, is a means of bringing manufacturing issues to the

2
design stage. Design rule checking, thus, presupposes a set of design rules and an
ecient rule checking algorithm.
The design rule checker presented in this paper forms the core of the design
advisor for ProMod-S; a product modeling framework intended to provide a concurrent
engineering environment for sheet metal application. We will describe the ProMod-S
evaluation and advisory scheme in the next section.

2 The ProMod-S Evaluation and Advisory

Scheme
The ProMod-S design rule checker builds upon previous work done by researchers
at the Automation and Robotics Laboratory of the University of Massachusetts at
Amherst [Nnaji91], [Nnaji92], [Yeh92]. Figure 1 shows how the design rule checker
ts into the overall scheme of sheet metal design evaluator and advisor. The scheme,
some parts of which are still in development, will ideally operate as follows:
There are two ways in which to enter the ProMod-S environment. The user may
enter directly by using the ProMod-S feature based modeler, or enter using an external
modeler. The output from an external modeler must rst be passed through a neutral
graphics translator to obtain an Initial Graphics Exchange Specication (IGES) le.
The IGES representation of the part then undergoes geometric validation inside the
ProMod-S system. This validation prepares the design for feature recognition and
extraction.
During the validation process, edges which have only one end point connected

3
 Figure 1: Sheet Metal Design Evaluator and Advisor in Product Modeling System
ProMod-S Environment
Design
Neutral Geometric Feature Rules
Feature
Graphics Validator Extractor Features
Database
File
Translator

Feature Tool Cost Design

Tools
Based Matching Estimator Rule
Database Checker
Modeler Engine

Violations
4

Cost
Basic
Cost
Database

Design
External Results Advisor
Modeler User Display
Cost,Advice,Violations
to the greater part (dangling edges) are removed, and collinear and cocurve edges
are detected and replaced by equivalent single edges. The removal of collinear and
cocurve edges is necessary to ensure an unambiguous representation of the part.
Regardless of the method of entry into the ProMod-S environment (through the
built-in feature-based modeler or through an external modeler), the part must be
passed to the feature extractor for feature recognition and extraction. We dene a
feature as a set of surfaces together with specications of the bounding relationships
between them which imply an engineering function.[Nnaji91] Features are context
dependent; it is therefore not assumed that features with which a part has been
designed using the feature-based modeler are the same features needed for subsequent
processes.
Save for deep drawing and coining, sheet metal operations do not change the
uniform sheet thickness of the stock. The change in sheet thickness caused by coining
is negligible, and deep drawing processes are beyond the scope of this paper and the
ProMod-S system. A uniform sheet thickness assumption on the part of the system
simplies many reasoning processes immensely. It allows the system to consider only
one side of the sheet metal part in question. This reduces many three dimensional
problems to two dimensions. Making use of this assumption, a surface-oriented model
is created as the rst step in recognition and extraction. The surface-oriented model
is used for all reasoning activities that follow.
After recognition and extraction the features are placed in a feature le where
they can be accessed by the Design Rule Checker, the Cost Estimator, and the Tool-
Matching Engine. The Design Rule checker accesses rules from the Design Rules

5
Database to identify violations; intrafeature violations caused by parameters of a
single feature, and interfeature violations caused by the relative locations of features
and features and contour edges. These violations are then passed to the Design
Advisor. The Cost Estimator accesses cost information from the Basic Cost database.
This basic cost information is based on the type, size, and location of each feature
on the part. It is calculated assuming a standard method for producing the feature.
For example, the Cost Estimator assumes that each hole is produced with a single
punch operation. It also receives cost updates from the Tool Matching Engine. Cost
updates are necessary because the assumption that there exists a standard method
for producing a feature may be faulty. This can happen, for instance, if the exact tool
needed to punch a hole is not available to the manufacturer, yet the hole may still be
punched using a combination of tools. The additional information needed to estimate
the cost of a part ( in this example the number of tools required to make the hole,
total number of punching operations, the total number of tool changes needed, etc. )
is passed to the Cost Estimator from the Tool-Matching Engine. The Cost Estimator
in turn passes all cost information to the design advisor. The design advisor passes
cost information, violations, and solution alternatives for correcting the violations to
the user through the Results Display.

3 Previous Work
Luby et al.[Luby] explored the possibility of automatic design evaluation during the
creation process to reduce the design cycle time with their experimental system
CASPER. Luby discusses issues related to capturing design violations and even cap-

6
tures some intrafeature violations (which can be avoided by designing features using
variational geometry), but does not address the problem of interfeature violations
that may occur in many mechanical components.
Cutkosky[Cutk90], points out the possibility of interfeature violation but, it is
not clear how they detect it automatically or otherwise. However, they are able to
capture intrafeature violations using geometric constraints.
Malmqvist [Malmq] focused on considering manufacturing requirements early in
the design process using parametric design approach. In this approach the researcher
imposes the minimum dimensions of the feature parameters as constraints during the
creation process thus eliminating the possibility of intrafeature violation.
DeFazio [Defaz] stressed the general need for better quality designs of manufac-
tured products and indicated (as many others have) that 70% or more of the life cycle
cost of a product is determined during the early design process. As a step towards the
solution he lists design rule checking as one of the important properties of a design
for manufacturing and assembly systems.
Gadh et al.[Gadh91] addressed various issues in knowledge-based manufactura-
bility analysis. In their approach Gadh and his team use Dierential Depth Percep-
tion Filter (DDPF) which is analogous to human discernation of object outlines in
recognizing features, during which they check for violation in feature parameters.
Nielsen et al. [Niels91] continued the work done by Luby in automatic design
evaluation. This work was one step towards responding to some of the criticism by
Shah and Wilson. This was an extensive work done in capturing both intrafeature and
interfeature violations. In their method Neilsen and his group model the Geometric
7
intent as a collection of restraints and geometric attributes of the design's form.
Their restraint is a collection of scalar restrictions, with each restriction associated
with a distinct source and importance level. This method lends itself to geometric
modications, however it relies on the designer to input values that are associated with
interfeature violations. As the number of features increase the rules associated with
them could increase exponentially, making it dicult for the designer to remember all
the rules. Also, as the interfeature violations are detected using position constraints,
in a part with complex contour, this would mean over constraining or would even
result in a failure to detect the violation. Due to the nature of the approach, even
if a design con ict is detected, the system cannot resolve it and has to rely on the
designer.
Most of the work in the literature deals with intrafeature violations. Interfeature
violations, on the other hand, received little attention. In the works reviewed above,

 it is not clear how interfeature violations are captured automatically or other-

wise, and/or

 the design rules to capture these violations are input by the user as constraints
in other cases.

It becomes a tedious task for the user to remember all the rules, as the number of
features on the part increases. It is more ecient and tractable that the user should
have an environment to check for interfeature violations automatically with ease and
eciency in a consistent and accurate manner, after having created the part in any
CAD system. It is also important that the methodology used to detect interfeature

8
violations as mentioned above should also provide some means for automatically
xing the violations. This essentially calls for a methodology which can understand
the geometry of the contour and its interior during the process of violation detection.
Medial Axis Transformation satises the above criterion and has been a very
useful tool in this research.

4 Design Rules and Violations

Design rules express the critical relationship between design requirements and process
capability attributes. The process capability data is compiled by manufacturing en-
gineers and organized to constitute the design rules. These rules provide the limiting
conditions that cause infeasibility, high cost, low quality and longer cycle time. Each
industry maintains process capability data in the form of handbooks, trade magazines
etc. It is up to the manufacturing engineer to synthesize the rules from the process
capability data and the industrial experience.
A stamping design rules database is compiled in this research and is presented in
this section. People in the sheet metal stamping industry have compiled design rules
from process capability data over the decades. Most of the explicit work in the area is
not readily available since the results are considered as industrial secrets. One has to
scavenge die design literature to obtain some detailed information. In this research,
in addition to rules collected from sheet-metal enclosure industries, the design rules
were collected mainly from;

1. SME's Die Design Handbook [Die90],

9
 2. Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook, Volume 2 [TMEH2]

3. Eary and Reeds's Techniques of Press Working Sheet Metal [Eary74],

4. Federico Strasser's Functional Design of Metal Stamping [Stras71] and Practical

Design of Sheet Metal Stampings [Stras59], and

5. ASM's Metals Handbook, Volume 4 [Metal69].

These design rules are expressed in terms of sheet metal features such as holes,
slots, bends, ribs, dimples, lances, louvers etc. The rules are mainly explicit state-
ments of the process constraints, dimension and geometric tolerances that can be
obtained. The rules provide the critical dimensions that should be maintained to
avoid violations i.e low manufacturability. The rules are generally of two types in
their application; the intrafeature rules and interfeature rules.

4.1 Intrafeature Rules

Interafeature rules are those rules that involve a single feature only. These rules give
critical dimensions to the parameters of the feature. Two most common intrafeature
rules involve holes, slots and bends.

4.1.1 Holes and Slots

Holes and slots are very common features in sheet metal stampings. The minimum
diameter of the hole should be;

 D (min) = "T" or 0.04 in, whichever is greater as shown in Figure 2.

10
 Figure 2: Minimum dimension for holes and slots
This rule expresses a technological constraint on punching process. As the hole diam-
eter goes below the stock thickness, the unit compressive stress on the punch increases
dramatically(about four times the shear stress on the sheet) causing the thin and weak
punch to buckle or break. The same rule applies to slots with the minor modication
of substituting the minor dimension instead of the diameter in the rule.

4.1.2 Bend

Bends are used in sheet metal parts mainly for forming the required shape contour
and sometimes for stiening. The minimum bend radius should be:

 R(min) = 1.5 T

11
If the bend radius is smaller than that given by this rule, cracks will occur on the
external surface of the bend due to the high tensile stress.

4.2 Interfeature Rules

Interfeature rules describe the relationship between features or features and the part
contour i.e edges of the blank.The features may be of the same type (like two holes)
or dierent (like hole and dimple).Some examples of interfeature rules follow.

4.2.1 Hole to Edge

If a hole is too close to an edge, the edge will distort forming a bulge as shown in g.
The minimum distance a hole should have from an edge is a function of the material
thickness as shown in Figure 3.

4.2.2 Hole to Bend

If a hole is too close to a bend, the hole will distort during bending. This will occur
if the hole is punched before bending. The other alternative, punching after bending
will be more expensive due to added cost of xtures. The minimum distance a hole
has to maintain from a bend is a function of the material thickness and the bend
radius as shown in the Figure 4.

12
Figure 3: Minimum hole to hole/ hole to edge distance

13
Figure 4: Minimum distance between a hole and a bend

14
4.3 Generic Rules
More than 65 design rules(both interfeature and intrafeature) are collected . These
rules are by no means complete. The rules, expressed in terms of features, require the
feature to be explicitly recognised before they can be applied. This restricts the rule
checking to common features. If the user denes a new feature, manufacturability can
not be evaluated unless the rules are input for the feature. A close study of the rules
was undertaken to nd higher level relationships that will deal with this problem.
The rst step in analyzing the rules is identifying the principles behind the rules.
It is found that many rules stem from few basic principles and are duplicated to
express the situation case by case for features.
It is observed that:

 edges are basic elements from the manufacturing point of view and there is a
one to one correspondence between edge types and manufacturing processes.
Thus expressing the rules in terms of edges will provide the basis for higher
level relationship and avoid the duplication.

 most of the rules deal with proximity of features to other features or the external
contour of the part. Using the previous observation, the rules were reorganized
to deal with proximity of edges.

 only the edges in the outermost loop of a feature need to be considered in

interfeature rules.

 most of the rules apply to features in the same face.

15
 Table 1: Generic Rules
EDGE 1 EDGE 2 Minimum Distance
Form Form 10T+R1+R2
Bend 4T+R1+R2
Ext. edge 4T+R1
Hole 3T+R1
Bend Bend
Ext. edge 2T+R1
Hole 2T+R1
Ext. edge Ext edge
Hole T < 0:032in; 0:060in
:032 < T < :125in; 2T
T > :125in; 2:5T
Hole Hole T < 0:032in; 0:060in
:032 < T < :125in; 2T
T > :125in; 2:5T

The analysis of the collected rules in light of the above observations resulted in
a compact set of generic rules expressed in terms of edges shown in Table 1.

5 The Rule Checking Algorithm

Typically sheet metal components have a number of features serving various purposes
which often include ventilation and fastening. As the contour of the part gets com-
plicated and the number of features on the sheet metal part increases, it is dicult
to check the rules exhaustively as it may lead to combinatorial explosion. Thus, an
ecient algorithm is needed for rule checking.
As observed in section 4, most rules apply to features in the same face of a part.
Each face consists of the external contour of the face and the features inside it. The
face prole or the face contour is the outermost contour and thus contains all other

16
contours within. All the other contours internal to the face contour belong to the
features in the face. A feature may have more than one prole/contour, but the
prole of interest here, called feature prole, is the outermost prole of the feature
that lies on the face. Using these facts with the face oriented model, each face of the
model forms a multiply-connected polygon. Since most rules deal with proximity, the
rule checking problem can thus be modeled as a proximity problem of a multiply-
connected polygon.
Medial Axis Transform (MAT) provides a convenient way of decomposing a
polygonal face into regions associated with edges. Any point inside each of these
regions is closer to the edge that is associated with the region than any other. The
boundaries of these regions carry distance information. Thus MAT can provide dis-
tance information, on the geometric interior of the faces, that is essential for the
design advisor during violation correction. A rule checking algorithm that utilizes
MAT to reduce the search space to computationally viable level is developed in our
laboratory. The algorithm proceeds one face at a time, and it could be applied every
time a feature is inserted on a face or after completing all work on a face.
The rule checking algorithm has three steps :

 Generation of medial axes.

 Extraction of loops that enclose features.
 Examination of the minimum distance information against the rules in the man-
ufacturing knowledge base.

17
 Figure 5: Medial axis or skeleton of a rectangle
5.1 Generation of Medial Axes
Before discussing the steps of generating MAT, let us rst brie y discuss the concept
of MAT.

5.1.1 Medial Axis Transformation

The Medial Axis Transformation is a technique rst proposed by Blum [Blum] as a

means to describe a gure. Lee [Lee82] formally dened it as follows: given an object
represented, say by a simple polygon G, the medial axis M (G) is the set of points
fqg internal to G such that there are at least two points on the object's boundary
that are equidistant from fqg and are closest to fqg. More explicitly, every point p
on the plane containing the shape may be associated with a nearest point such that
the Euclidian distance from a point p to the boundary set B is the distance from p
to a nearest point P on B ,

18
 Figure 6: External medial axis of a square

d(p; B ) = minfd(p; P ) : P 2 B g
Such a nearest point exists because the shape is a closed subset of the Euclidian space.
For a particular set of points the minimum distance is not achieved uniquely. Such
points are equidistant from two or more points on the boundary contour. The set of
points together with the limit points of this set constitute the medial axis or skeleton
of a given shape as shown in Figure 5. This denes what we call internal MAT for
the purpose of this paper. The external medial axis is based on the same concept as
the internal medial axis except that the concept is applied to the region outside the
polygon as shown in the Figure 6.
MAT is closely related to Voronoi diagrams. The MAT and Voronoi diagram of
convex polygons are the same. In the case of non-convex polygons, polygons with
reentrant vertices, however, the MAT will be a subset of the Voronoi diagram. The
Voronoi diagram will have two more edges perpendicular to the edges that intersect
at each re-entrant vertex. As is done commonly, the terms Voronoi diagram and MAT
are used interchangeably here.

19
5.1.2 Generation of Medial Axis Transforms

In section 5, it was discussed that each face can be modeled as a multiply-connected

polygon. Thus, algorithms for generating MAT of multiply-connected polygons could
be used to generate the MAT for each face.
Generating Voronoi diagrams for multiply-connected polygons involves three
main steps; generating the internal MAT of the external boundary, generating the ex-
ternal MAT of the internal boundaries and blending the external and internal MAT's
generated henceforth.
The algorithm, developed by Srinivasan and Nackman [srini87] is used to com-
pute the Voronoi diagram of a multiply-connected polygonal domain, V OD([Hj=0 @
),
where H is the number of polygons. The algorithm does this by computing the in-
dividual Voronoi diagrams V OD(@!j ); j = 0; :::; H , and then merging them. The
complete algorithm runs in O(n log n + H ) time, where n is total number of edges in
the polygonal domain and H is the number of polygons.
Consider the multiply connected polygon in Figure 7. The Voronoi diagram,
i.e. internal medial axis of the external boundary, is computed using the algorithm
developed by Lee [Lee82]. A modication of Lee's algorithm was used to compute
external medial axis of the internal boundary. After the internal and external MATs
are computed separately, they are superimposed and their merge curve is computed.
The merge curve is the bisector between the boundaries whose Voronoi diagrams are
being merged.
For sheet parts, the pseudo code to apply the above steps for any given face is :

20
 Figure 7: Multiply-Connected Polygon
 Sort the face loop and the feature loops
 Generate the internal MAT for the face loop
 For featni=1, n is the number of features on the face
Begin
Generate the external medial axis of the current feature
Find the start point to blend the external medial axis of the current feature
with previous medial axes generated and blend it
End

The most important property of Voronoi diagrams of multiply-connected poly-

gons that forms the basis of the rule checking algorithm is :
merge curves are simple, closed curves.

21
 Figure 8: An external MAT superimposed and ready for blending
Thus each feature is enclosed by a loop which is the locus of points equidistant be-
tween the feature prole and other adjacent proles. The distances associated with
the vertices of the loop are calculated in the process of generating the merge curve.
These distances provide the proximity information of the feature under consideration
during rule checking.
In Figure 9 the face has four features and the blended medial axes. For this
particular face if one were to search for design violations exhaustively it would mean
that all the four features have to be checked against each other (the complexity of
which is a function of the total number of edges of the features) and all four features
have to be checked against each of the four edges of the face. However, this search
can be reduced by examining the loop that surrounds each feature. But the loop
should be extracted before examining it. The next section discusses loop extraction.

22
 Figure 9: Medial axis of a multiply connected polygon
5.2 Loop Extraction
As it can be seen in Figure 8 showing blending results in a merge curve that consists of
two types of Voronoi edges: Voronoi edges between the edges of dierent proles(face
prole or feature prole) and Voronoi edges between the edges of the same prole.
The Voronoi edges of interest, those that form the loop we want to extract, are the
ones that belong to the edges of two dierent proles.
The multiply connected polygon shown in Figure 9 has many loops formed by
Voronoi edges. Many of these loops do not enclose any features and are generated
partly during the external medial axis generation and partly during blending. The
loops that are of interest to us are generated completely during blending and should
enclose only one feature. In many cases there may be loops that enclose more than
one feature which should be neglected.

23
 To extract the loops of interest the data structure of the Voronoi edges is designed
to hold the feature or prole ID's of the elements that generate them. For example in
Figure 9, the Voronoi edges starting from the circles would have the same ID for both
the left and right feature ID's, as the elements that generate these Voronoi edges be-
long to the same feature. The Voronoi edges shown in Figure 10 would have dierent
ID's as the elements that generate these belong to dierent features or proles. The
following enumerate the loop extraction algorithm steps.

Let vij be the ith Voronoi edge of feature j

For vij (i = 1::n) f
If vij ! leftid = vij ! rightid
Continue
Call Function (Extract Voronoi edge(vij )g
repeat the above steps for all the features on a face.

Applying the above algorithm to the medial axis of the multiply connected poly-
gon shown in Figure 9 results in the extraction of the loops that surround single
features as shown in Figure 10.

6 Scanning for violation

The last part of the rule checking algorithm compares the distance information stored
in the vertices of the merge loop with the rule base to detect violations. As mentioned
earlier the use of medial axis reduces the search space for violation detection. This
is especially useful as the number of features and edges on a sheet metal component
are many in number.

24
 Figure 10: Loops of interest in the medial axis of a multiply-connected polygon
After the loops are extracted from the other Voronoi edges that surround the
features, the loops (see Figure 10) are scanned for violation that may exist between
the elements that generate them. Two consecutive vertices on the merge curve are
chosen at a time till the entire loop is traversed. If d is the distance between the
vertex on the merge curve and either of the parent elements and dmin is the minimum
distance required between the two features under consideration, two cases may arise:

p
1. If 2  d < dmin , which is the worst case scenario, then the distances between
the vertices of the elements, dv1 and dv2,are calculated (Figure 11). If either
dv1 < dmin or dv2 < dmin then the features have violated the rule or else the two
features are a safe distance apart.
p
2. If 2  d  dmin , then the two elements that generate the merge curve are safe
distance apart.

25
 Figure 11: Closeness of non-parallel Voronoi elements

Figure 12: Violations captured using the loops

If two elements are found to be closer than allowed by the design rule, the edges
are highlighted. In Figure 12 the loop that surround the right side obround hole is
scanned and this feature is found to be too close to the left side obround hole. The
violation is due to the fact the two highlighted edges are too close. Similarly other
loops are scanned and violations are highlighted as shown in Figure 12.

7 Violation correction
An extensive discussion of violation correction is given in [Kamr94]. The purpose of
this paper is to address the violation detection aspects of the of the design advisory
system. One of the options not covered in [Kamr94] is that of moving the feature to

26
 Figure 13: Zooming on Vc
another location. This option is discussed here.

7.1 Moving Features

As discussed in section 5 most of the manufacturability rules involve proximity con-
ditions. Thus, moving, i.e, repositioning the features is one way to correct violations.
But there are two concerns;

1. before moving a feature the direction and magnitude of the necessary displace-
ment should be known, and

2. there should be a way to ensure the feature will not create new violations at
the new location.

27
 As discussed in section 5.1, the merge loop of a feature contains it's proximity
information. By comparing this proximity information with the minimum distance
provided by the manufacturability rule, the direction and distance of moving can be
derived. The steps required to achieve this are described as follows; (Figure 13 is used
to illustrate the steps.)

1. As mentioned in section 6, the edges of the feature that violated the rule are
highlighted. Among the endpoints of these edges, nd the vertex,Vc, which is
closest to the edge with which the violation has occurred. This vertex is the
worst case of the violation. It has the maximum shortfall from the minimum
distance, dmin , specied by the rule. Referring to Figure 13, vc is the point with
r = max(dmin ? d) where r is the shortfall,
dmin is the minimum distance the edges should be apart to avoid violation as
specied by the rule, and
d is the distance between Vc and Ev , the edge with which the violation occurred.
Notice d should be less than dmin for a violation to occur.

2. Resolve r into its rectangular components, along the local coordinates X and Y,
rx and ry respectively. Referring to Figure 13, it can been seen that repositioning
Vc anywhere along(and beyond) line l1 which is parallel and a distance of dmin
away from Ev will correct the violation. If Vc is to be moved along X only, a
distance of
X is required to reach l1 i.e correct the violation. This distance
can be calculated by
r

X = r
2
(1)
x

28
 Figure 14: Zooming on Vf

Similarly for Y,

Y = rr
2
(2)
y

If Vc is to be moved in an arbitrary direction, the violation is corrected if the

movement satises,

My 
X M +
Y (3)

Y x

where My is the Y component of the movement,and where Mx is the X compo-

nent of the movement.
Thus, the rst concern, direction and magnitude of the move that is necessary
to correct the violation is established. The steps that follow address the second
concern, and check if moving the feature will not create new violations.

29
 3. Traverse the merge loop to nd the vertex, Vf , on the feature, with the min-
imum remaining distance. The remaining distance is the dierence between
the distance and dmin . Thus, referring to Figure 14, Vf is the vertex where
r = d ? dmin is minimum. Resolve r into its components rx and ry . If Vf is
moved along X, the maximum distance it can move before a violation occurs ,
Rx, is given by:
r
Rx = r
2
(4)
x

Similarly for Y, Ry is given by:

r
Ry = r
2
(5)
y

4. If Rx, is greater than
X , or if Ry is greater than
Y , then the feature can

be moved safely to correct the violation. Otherwise, moving is possible i there
could be found a movement M , with components Mx and My that satisfy;

My  R x
R Mx + Ry (6)
y

8 Conclusion
Using the algorithms presented in this paper, the design rule checking module of
Promod-S is able to oer manufacturing advice to a human designer at an early stage
of the design process. While the design process is going on, the entire part can be
checked for the occurrence of common design violations based on manufacturing con-
straints. Medial Axis approach reduces the search space considerably while checking
30
for design violations in complex sheet metal parts. It also provides a way to correct
certain violations by moving the feature. This is possible because Medial Axis Trans-
form provides plausible moving directions for the features which violate the design
rules.
The design rule checking module works in conjunction with the other Promod-S
modules in order to bridge the gap between design and manufacturing in the sheet
metal domain. Other modules include a feature-based design creation module, and a
feature extraction/recognition module. Modules currently under development include
a cost estimator and tool matching engine.

References
[Blum] Blum H., \A Transformation for Extracting New Descriptors of Shape",
Models for the Perception of Speech and Visual Form, ed: Weinant Wathen-
Dunn MIT Press, 1967, pp. 362-381.
[Cutk90] Cutkosky,M.R., and Tenenbaum, J.M., \Features in Process Based Design
of Features," Mechanism and Machine Theory ,Vol 25-3, pp. 365-81, 1990.
[DEC90] Sheet Metal Designer's Handbook-Customer's Edition, Digital Equipment
Corporation, 1990.
[Defaz] Defazio, T.,L., etal \ A Prototype of Feature-Based Design for Assembly
",ASME Advances in Design Automation 1990, DE-Vol 23-1, pp. 9-16.
[Die90] Smith, D., Editor Die Design Handbook , Society of Manufacturing Engi-
neers, 1990.
[Eary74] Eary,D. F.,Techniques of Pressworking Sheet Metal, Second Edition, Pren-
tice Hall Inc., New Jersey, 1974.
[Gadh91] Gadh, R., Hall, M.A., Gursoz,E.L., Prinz, F.B., Sudhakar, A.,M., \Feature
Abstraction in a Knowledge-Based Critique of Designs" Manufacturing Re-
view, Vol 4, No 2, June 1991.
[IGES] Initial Graphics Exchange Specication (IGES) Version 4.0, U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, June 1988.
31
[Kamr93] Kamran, M., \Feature-Based Design Evaluation and Modeling for sheet
metal", Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Febru-
ary 1993.
[Kamr94] Kamran, M., Yeh, S., Terry,J.M.E, and Nnaji, B.O., \ A Design Advisor
for Sheet Metal Fabrication ", IIE Transactions, In Press.
[Lee82] Lee, D T., \Medial Axis Transformation of a Planar Shape",IEEE Trans-
actions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. PAMI-4, NO.
4, pp. 363-369, July 1982.
[Luby] Luby,S.,c., and Dixon,J.,R., and Simmons,M.,K.,\Creating and using a fea-
tures database ",Comput. Mech. Eng. Vol 5, No 3,1986.
[Malmq] Malmqvist, J., \ A Design System For Parametric Design of Complex Prod-
ucts ",ASME Advances in Design Automation 1990, DE-Vol 23-1, pp. 17-
24.
[Metal69] Lyman, T., Editor, Metals Handbook, 8th Edition, Vol.4, Forming, Ameri-
can Society for Metals, Metals Park, Ohio, 1969.
[Niels91] Nielsen, E.H., Dixon, J.R., Zinsmeister, G.E. 1989. \Capturing and Using
Designer Intent in a Design-with-Features System,"Proc. Design Theory
and Methodology Conf., ASME DE-Vol. 31, pp.95-102
[Nnaji91] Nnaji, B.O.,Kang, T.S.,Yeh, S.C., and Chen, J.P., \Feature Reasoning for
sheet metal components", International Journal of Production Research,
Vol 29, No 9, 1991, pp. 1867-1896.
[Nnaji92] Nnaji, B.O., \Feature-Based Product Modelling for Sheet Metal compo-
nents", National Science Foundation Research Proposal, October 1992.
[Srini87] Srinivasan V., Nackman L R., \Voronoi Diagrams for Multiply Connected
Polygonal Domains I: Algorithm",IBM Journal of Research and Develop-
ment, Vol. 31, No. 3, May 1987, pp. 361-372. 1, pp 563-9.
[Stras59] Strasser,F., Practical Design of Sheet Metal Stampings, Chilton Company-
Book Division, 1959.
[Stras71] Strasser,F., Functional Design of Metal Stampings, Society of Manufactur-
ing Engineers, 1971.
[TMEH2] Wick, C. and etal, Editors, Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook,
Vol.2, Forming, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn, Michigan,
1984.

32
[TMEH6] Bakerjian, R., Editor, Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook, Vol.6,
Design for Manufacturability, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Dear-
born, Michigan, 1992.
[Yeh92] Yeh, Shuicheh, \CAD-Based Automatic Object Recognition and Determi-
nation of Symmetric Properties of Objects", Ph.D. Dissertation, University
of Massachusetts at Amherst, October 1992.

33