Int J Adv Manuf Technol (1994) 9:352-361
9 1994 Springer-Verlag London Limited
A Dimensioning and Tolerancing Assistance Model for CAD/CAM
Systems
A. Desrochers* and A. C16mentt
*l~cole de Technologic Suprdeure, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; tDassault Systemes, Suresnes, France
A model called TTRS for technologically and topologically
related surfaces, has been developed and its application to
dimensioning and tolerancing is presented here. According to
this model, any part can be represented as a succession of
binary surfaces associations forming a tree. Additionally, each
surfaces association, termed as a TTRS object, is represented
by a set of minimum geometric datum elements (MGDE).
Once established, each TTRS can be given appropriate geometric
dimensioning and tolerancing (GD & T) symbols through a
general procedure making use of GD & T tables and
combination rules. Application examples are also presented.
Keywords: CAD/CAM; Dimensioning; Model; Standards;
Surfaces; Tolerancing
1. Introduction
Today's C A D / C A M systems allow a user to model any three-
dimensional part. However, there is, most of the time, little
or no provision to guide a user into choosing the appropriate
geometric dimensioning and tolerancing symbols for the part.
In view of this, we have developed a model which has proved
to be well suited for this task.
The model, called TTRS for technologically and topologi-
cally related surfaces, is based on successive binary associations
of elementary surfaces. Along with this association process,
we .have devised a method to generate partial or complete
datum systems representing the various surfaces associations.
We call these partial or complete reference frames "minimum
geometric datum elements" or MGDE. Finally, the TI'RS
concept, along with the notion of MGDE, prov!des a solid
basis for establishing a general dimerisioning and tolerancing
assistance scheme. Thus, the main objective of this paper will
be to deal with this particular issue.
Correspondence and offprint requests to'. A. Desrochers, l~cole de
Technologic Sup~deure, Montrral, Qurbec, Canada.
The bternational Journal of
I]dvanced
manufacturing
]echnologu
1.1 Description of the Problem
As we have mentioned earlier, actual C A D / C A M systems
are proving to be lacking regarding:
1. A proper dimensioning and tolerancing assistance.
Indeed, even though the modelling task itself has been
simplified, the dimensioning and tolerancing job still requires
the experience and the knowledge of an expert. Typically,
the various tolerancing symbols are available to the designer
through a library, but the C A D / C A M system usually does
not provide any guidance for the user to select the
appropriate symbols.
2. The integration of tolerances within the model.
Assuming the proper symbols and their values have been
chosen, there is still a problem for integrating these data
within the CAD model. Tolerancing information is usually
only a form of dressing for the model. There is little or no
connexion between the gometric data of the model and the
technological information conveyed by the tolerances.
Consequently, in this paper, we will attempt to fill these
gaps by presenting a model well suited for the integration of
geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD & T) information
within CAD model. Moreover, we will also show how this
model can be used as a basis for a dimensioning and
tolerancing assistance system. Before that, however, we will
proceed to a bibliographical review to get a good grasp of
the state of the art in this particular field.
1.2 Bibliographical Review
There are several fields in which a bibliographical review
would be in order in the scope of this article. Indeed, it could
be appropriate both in the area of C A D / C A M representation
models and for the representation of dimensions and tolerances
within CAD~CAM systems. In this instance, we will concen-
trate on the latter since our ultimate goal is to propose a
dimensioning and tolerancing assistance model. Moreover,
this topic can be further divided into even more specific
subjects relating to the various approaches undertaken.
Therefore, let us examine some of these approaches and
subjects.

1.2.1 Dimensioning
In the area of dimensioning, very little work has actually
been done. We can mention the work of Bond [1] on
the automatic dimensioning of three-dimensional models in
appropriate views. His rule-based approach, however, does
not take tolerances into account. This has been done by
Bernstein and Preiss [2] who proposed a representation model
for tolerances, integrating dimensions. Their model uses a
constraint propagation approach and is limited to dimensional
tolerances. In the general field of tolerances, the literature is
far richer, as we shall see.
1.2.2 Tolerances Representation
Several avenues have been explored in this field and most
have been the topic of serious work. We will therefore present
the main approaches developed, along with their major
proponents.
The first of these approaches is the representation of
tolerances using tolerance zones. These tolerance zones are
constructed by offsetting the theoretical nominal surfaces. On
this, Requicha [3, 4] has proposed such a model based on a
modified CSG model completed by a variational graph. His
offsetting methods have, however, drawn criticism from,
among others, Weill [5] and Farmer [6]. Following a similar
approach, Srinivasan [7, 8] has devised a model based on
virtual boundaries defining half spaces composing the part
and establishing bulk material regions. He also establishes
tolerance zones accordingly. Both, Requicha and Srinivasan
are currently engaged in a joint effort for a proposal on the
definition or redefinition of size tolerancing within the ANSI
Y14.5 M standard [9].
The second type of tolerance representation uses a vectorial
description of tolerances. More specifically, two researchers
have adopted this approach and developed it. Turner [10, 11]
proposes a model in which he introduces three types of
variable: design, model and tolerance. From this point on,
the problem of tolerancing reduces to the establishment of
relations between tolerance and design variables through the
use of a vectorial space. In Europe, Wirst [12] adopted a
completely different approach to that of Turner. Indeed,
Wirst defines the position, direction and dimension of an
element or a surface by vectors established with respect to a
unique reference frame. Tolerance intervals are then associated
with each component of these vectors. His method has
been the basis of a proposal for a new Swiss coordinate
measurements standard [13].
1.2.3 ToleranceAnalysis and Synthesis
This is yet another very active area of research worth
mentioning. However, it is not specifically the topic of this
article, so we will not get into details concerning it. The
interested reader could, however, consult [14-16] for a
significant, non-statistical approach to tolerance analysis and
synthesis.
A Dimensioning and Tolerancing Assistance Model 353
2. The TTRS Model
This model has already been the topic of previous articles
[17-19]. However, some of the aspects we will present here
are new and its application as a basis for a general dimensioning
and tolerancing procedure is definitely novel. Nevertheless,
before entering this subject we will begin by a review of the
basic concept underlying the TTRS model.
2.1 Definition
As we mentioned earlier the letters TTRS stand for "techno-
logically and topologically related surfaces".
Moreover, in our concept, T'I'RS are seen as objects
representing sets of related surfaces on the same part. In this
respect, a part can thus be seen as a list of "Iq'RS, each one
regrouping a subset of all the functional surfaces.
More specifically, the definition given for a TTRS entity
goes as follows: "Set composed of two surfaces (or TYRS)
belonging to the same solid and located on the same kinematic
loop in a given mechanism".
As we will show, this definition carries several important
ideas that restrict and define the notion of surfaces associations.
Let us list and explain these ideas.
1. The concept is based on the notion of surfaces.
A surface is defined in Webster's Dictionary as being "the
exterior or upper boundary of an object or body" or again
as "a plane or curved two-dimensional locus of points (as
the boundary of a three dimensional region)". These
definitions certainly illustrate well the idea we have of
what a surface is. However, they do not provide the
mathematical strictness needed to implement the notion of
surface within a C A D / C A M system. For this reason, we
have established our own definition of elementary surfaces
based on their degrees of freedom. We will examine this
later.
2. The association process is binary.
In our model, associations are made two by two. They
involve either two surfaces, one surface and a T r R S or
two TTRS. In each cases, however, we are associating
only two entities (surface or "FIRS) at a time. Therefore
the binary character of the association process will be one
of the main feature of our model.
3. The association process is also recursive.
The mere fact that a surface can be associated with a
TTRS to form a new TTRS, implies that the whole
association process is a recursive one. Consequently, when
considering a part, we will start by associating isolated
surfaces together. Then we will proceed by relating isolated
surfaces to TTRS previously constructed. Finally, we will
most probably end up associating "FI'RS together to form
"bigger" TI'RS, that is T r R S involving a greater number
of elementary surfaces. Normally, at the end of the
association procedure, all functional surfaces and all TI'RS
should be related in a hierarchical fashion to form an
association tree or graph. Such a graph is presented in
"Fig. 1. It shows both the binary and recursive character
of the method.
354 A. Desrochers and A. Clement

TI'RS 4 that definition could be stated as: "Any surface can be defined
and classified by its degrees of invariance".
A degree of invariance can be seen as a translation or a
rotation under which a given geometry remains unchanged.

/rra~ ~ ~rRs~
SURFACE I SURFACE 2 SLIRFACE 3 SURFACE 4
Fig. 1. A TTRS association tree or graph.
4. Associations are guided by the kinematic loops in a
mechanism.
,J
Mechanisms can be represented schematically by a binding
graph. In such a graph, all the parts and all the surfaces
participating in contacts are represented. These surfaces
are said to be functional because they participate in the
assembly and more often than not, their dimensions are
crucial to insure proper mating and functioning of the
mechanism. Contacts between functional surfaces are,
moreover, represented by solid lines on the graph. Once
parts, surfaces and contacts are represented, it is then
possible to extract numerous closed loops or cycles on the
graph. These cycles are called kinematic loops and they
are, in many ways, the three-dimensional equivalent of the
familiar tolerancing chains.
The association process, or the generation of TTRS, will
then be made according to a given number of selected
independent kinematic loops. We will therefore relate only
surfaces or TTRS belonging to the same kinematic loop
and the same solid or part. The complete process is
illustrated in Fig. 2. The mechanism is represented there
with the corresponding binding graph, choice of indepen-
dent loops and TTRS generation tree.
Finally, even though this part of our model is important,
we will not be focusing on it in this article. Instead, we
will concentrate on a method for dimensioning and
tolerancing TI'RS regardless of how they were obtained.
Now, in the following sections, we will describe several
aspects which are important for the comprehension of our
dimensioning and tolerancing assistance system.
2.2 Classes of Elementary Surfaces
For example, cylinders define a class of surfaces that remain
unchanged or identical under a translation and a rotation
about an axis. Similarly, planes define yet another class of
SURFACE 5
surfaces invariant under two translations and a rotation
perpendicular to the plane of the translations. Proceeding in
this fashion, we end up with seven distinct classes of surfaces
which are presented in Table 1.
Therefore, according to the TTRS model, parts will be
represented by successive surfaces associations forming a tree.
This method of representation for parts is quite different from
the traditional B. Rep. and CSG model. Indeed, none of
these models uses the notion of surface; the B. Rep. model
starts from point (vertex) and lines whereas the CSG model
deals directly with solid primitives. On the other hand, the
idea of successive binary associations forming a tree is similar
to the notion of the CSG graph. Nevertheless, as we shall
see later, the use of surfaces in our approach will give us a
definite edge for dimensioning and tolerancing parts.
2.3 The MGDE Concept
In Table 1, presenting the seven classes of elementary surfaces,
each surface is shown along with the geometric elements
representing it. For instance, a cylinder is illustrated along
with a line as its axis, a sphere, with a point for its centre
Table I. The seven classes of elementary surfaces.
E L E M E N T A R Y SURFACF~S N U M B E R O F DEGREES D E G R E E S O F INVARIANCE
O F INVAR ANCE
3 Iranslalions
6
3 rotaliOllS
General surface
2 Iranslatiolls
5
3 rotations
Prismatic surface
3 IrallS]alion$
5
2 rotations
Surface of rcvolulion
2 translations

5 2 rotations
AS we said in the previous section, for our purpose we have (I coupling between
Hdical surface translation and rotation)
had to propose our own definition of surface. Furthermore,
2 translations
4
2 rotations
Cylindrical surface

I translation
3
2 I'Otal[OIl$
Plane surface

, l i
]i/i:,
I
i!~, [
;J:
I
s, s2 s3
(:.5
Spherical surface
3 3 translations

Fig. 2. A mechanism, its binding graph and "I'TRS association tree

or graph.

Table 2. The elementary surfaces and their corresponding MGDE.
ELEMENTARY SURFACES MGDE SYMBOL MGDE ELEMENTS
Spherical 9 Point
Plane ~7 Plane
Cylindrical Line
Helical "--41"--- Line and point
Of revolution -- 9 Line and point
Prismatic ~ Line and point
General ~ Line, point and plane
and so on. These geometric elements characterising the surface
are referred to in our model as: M G D E or "Minimum
geometric datum elements".
These M G D E are actually equivalent to theoretical reference
frames meant to represent the real surfaces or TTRS. For
this reason, they are in no case optional and they are an
indissociable part of the TTRS model. Moreover, the M G D E
describe, visually, the degrees of invariance associated to a
surface or TTRS. For instance, the line or axis of a cylindrical
surface can only be translated along or rotated about itself
which leaves four degrees of invariance; two in translation
and two in rotation. Finally, the various combinations of
geometrical elements forming the M G D E for the seven classes
of surfaces are shown in Table 2.
Moreover, one quick glance at that table will lead anyone
to observe that all M G D E involve a point, a straight line, a
plane or a combination of these elements. For this reason,
we will consider the point, the straight line and the plane as
being "basic M G D E " which means that all other M G D E will
only be combination of these three. This statement is
summarised in Table 3.
The notion of basic M G D E is also interesting because it
reflects the fact that the surfaces they represent are those
most commonly used in the majority of the parts being
manufactured. Indeed, most parts involved in a given mechan-
ism are composed solely of planes, cylinders and occasionally
spheres. Only exceptionally, will a designer use other types
of functional surfaces. Therefore the concept of basic M G D E
is significant for current design and manufacturing practices.
Additionally, the idea of basic M G D E also carries that of
evolution or recursivity in the surface association process.
Very few TTRS can be represented by basic M G D E alone;
for most, they need a combination of them. This is the case,
in fact, for all TTRS except those composed of parallel planes,
coaxial cylinders or concentric spheres for which basic M G D E
alone are appropriate. In all other cases, however, the proper
M G D E will involve a combination of basic M G D E .
Table 3. The three basic MGDE.
BASIC MGDE I SYMBOL I CORRESPONDING SURFACE
Point
Plane ~
9 Sphere
Plane
Line , -- 9 Lme
A Dimensioning and Tolerancing Assistance Model 355
For instance, the association of two parallel cylinders will
lead to the creation of a prismatic T r R S which in turn will
be suitably represented by an axis and a plane as M G D E .
Moreover, as in Fig. 3(a), if we now add a plane perpendicular
to this prismatic T r R S , we will get a general or complete
T-I'RS for which no degrees of invariance are left. In this
case, the corresponding M G D E will be obtained simply by
adding a point to the previous M G D E representing the
prismatic surface. Therefore, the idea of recursivity can clearly
be seen in the M G D E construction process along with the
generation of TTRS. The principle of recursivity shown in
this example is illustrated in Fig. 3(b).
Another important feature of the M G D E concept that can
be seen in this example (Fig. 3) deals with the flexibility of
the M G D E construction procedure. The final M G D E is
composed, as recommended in Table 2, of a plane, a line
and a point. However, as the example shows, this does not
mean that the composing surfaces must necessarily be a plane,
a cylinder and a sphere. The M G D E , faithful to its name,
proposes only the minimum amount of geometrical information
necessary to properly describe and position the surfaces
associations or even the part. Therefore, the M G D E is always
a geometric subset of the actual surfaces.
A classical example of this is the case of three mutually
perpendicular datum planes, in order of precedence, forming
a general or complete TTRS (see Fig. 4(a)). According to
Table 2, the corresponding M G D E would then be formed of
a plane, a line and a point. Intuitively, however, most
designers would prefer considering a reference frame composed
of three orthogonal planes. Nevertheless, we shall demonstrate
that our proposed M G D E represents this "datum TTRS" best
because it catches the designer's intent by integrating the
order of precedence which is crucial both for tolerancing and
SI $2 $3
(a)
"l'rRS2 A point ='+added IO the MGI)E
(general} of thc prc~ious qT'RS
MGDE : The point comes from the
lnler~+~lion o1"the previous LMGDF+
and the newly added plane
/ I ~ ' I '/R S I
(Pr~;';;;II;iE': _ A plane Is added to Ihc
axis of one of tire cyhnder~,
The plane is formed by III1' tv,o
h parallel axis
I'lanr $3 ('yhndur S2
\ (.'ylindcr S I
,M(d)li : M(il)l: : M(iDI: :
(b) / /
Fig. 3. (a) The part: a block with a milled surface $3 and two parallel
bores S1 and $2. (b) The corresponding TTRS and MGDE generation
tree.
 356 A. Desrochers and A. Clt~ment

Tertiary datum
that they are involved in the association process right
from the beginning. Consequently, every TTRS constructed
Secondarydatumk ~ / r ~
afterwards will inevitably involve one of the data. This will
prove to be useful when we consider dimensioning and
tolerancing.
Additionally, some rules were also established concerning
the choice of an appropriate M G D E in three typical cases.
" '>< rimaryda,am [] These rules can be stated as follows:
(a) Mutaall), perpendicularplanes

Rule 1
DATUM [ ORDEROF ] CORRESPONDING [ ORIGIN Condition: The resulting TTRS can be classified in the same
SURFACE PRECEDENCE MGDE OF MGDE
primary Plane Plane [ ]
class as both of its original components (surfaces or "VI'RS).
c 27 datum ~ Rule: The resulting M G D E is the M G D E of one of its
original components or a new one. No preference is given in
secondary Line Intersection this case.
datum of planes
_y," Example: Two parallel planes forming a planar TI'RS. The
resulting M G D E will be either chosen between the M G D E
of its original components or will be the median plane of the
[] tertiary Point / Intersectionof association.
datum
/ ,4 planes[ ]

rJ..,
K.___j J
f~' s/
(b)
Fig. 4. (a)Typical datum reference frame. (b) Construction of MGDE
according to the order of precedence.
manufacturing. This is shown in Fig. 4(b). Using this approach,
we can therefore integrate the order of precedence within
our model along with the real plane surfaces composing the
datum TI'RS.
Finally, the idea of representing a complete reference frame
by a theoretical plane, line and point is also interesting
because it allows a model or TI'RS to evolve from either a
prismatic or revolution TTRS to a general or complete one.
This would not be possible using other combinations of basic
MGDE.
2.4 Generation Rules for MGDE
Thus far, we have seen which theoretical elements or
M G D E should represent which "Iq'RS. However, we have
not yet seen how those theoretical elements are chosen on
the real surfaces. Consequently, we will establish, in this
section, guidelines regarding this.
The first and most important issue to consider when
choosing an M G D E , is reflection of the designer's intent.
This can be done by selecting, as M G D E , a theoretical
element that corresponds to a datum surface on the actual
part. For instance, in the case of parallel planes, the proposed
M G D E is a theoretical plane. Such a plane can either be
chosen coincident to one of the real planes or the median
plane between them. All these options are thereotically
equivalent, but, in practice, priority should be given to a
plane that coincides with a real surface or TTRS which has
already been selected as datum.
Following this idea, one should always start by creating
TI'RS involving the chosen datum. In this way, we make sure
[ ] aud[ ] Rule 2
Condition: The TTRS product is classified into the same class
as one of its original components.
Rule: The new M G D E is the M G D E of the component
sharing the same class.
Example: A prismatic surface or TTRS parallel to a cylinder
or cylinder TTRS yielding a new prismatic TTRS. The
resulting M G D E in this case, will be the M G D E of the
original prismatic surface or TI'RS.
Rule 3
Condition: The TTRS product is classified in a class of higher
rank or invariance degree than any of its original components.
Rule: Both original M G D E will participate in the determi-
nation of the resulting M G D E .
Example: A cylinder parallel to a plane and forming a
prismatic TTRS. The rank or the invariance degree of the
prismatic q'TRS is higher than that of the cylinder or the
plane; both have more degrees of freedom. Consequently,
the prismatic M G D E will use the cylinder's axis or M G D E
as well as the plane itself to define the prismatic TTRS
completely.
As can be seen, these rules constrain the choice of a proper
M G D E . However, they still leave plenty of freedom for the
designer in many situations. Consequently, other rules, based
on technological requirements, have been established to
constrain the choice of the M D G E even further. These
additional rules relate to the automatic generation of TTRS
through the use of binding graphs [17, 18]. They will not,
however, be presented in this article. Nevertheless, it should
be understood that the primary goal of the M D G E , is to
reflect, as much as possible, the choice of datum made by
the designer.
 A Dimensioning and Tolerancing Assistance Model 357

3. D i m e n s i o n i n g a n d T o l e r a n c i n g "l'rRS Table 5. Dimensioning and toleraneing of elementary surfaces.

Now that we have seen the basics of the TTRS model, we Sure'ate Dimensions Tolerances
will present its application to dimensioning and tolerancing. Sphe.~ r 0
As we shall see, the concept of surfaces associations is Planar N.A.
particularly well suited for that task. Cylindrical r . 9, o,m.
Helical ~ , Pitch or thread tel ANSI YI4.6
or revolution oR ~, C'~, 0 .
3.1 A General Procedure Prismatic ~q , R ~ ,~ , I,

General , R ,c-~.~.L~
Here we will propose a general procedure that will generate
a dimensioning and tolerancing scheme representative of the
TI'RS created. The suggested method is fairly simple and
consists basically of two steps:
3.3 Dimensioning and Toleranclng MGDE
1. Dimensioning and tolerancing elementary surfaces. Assocations
This first step concerns the dimensioning and tolerancing
of the elementary surfaces involved in a given TTRS. In this last stage, the designer will concentrate on establishing
Indeed, in most cases, dimensions and tolerances of form the relative position of the M G D E of the two surfaces or
or profile can be assigned to individual surfaces (see Table TI'RS forming the new TTRS. Following Table 6, this will
4). be done using linear and angular dimensions as well as
2. Dimensioning and tolerancing M G D E associations. location, orientation and possibly runout tolerances. Moreover,
Once elementary surfaces have been dealt with, it is the choice of dimensions and tolerances will depend not only
necessary to characterise their associations by positioning on the class of surfaces or TI'RS involved but also on their
their M G D E with respect to one another. This can be done topological relations. For instance, the dimensioning and
using dimensions (distances and angles) as well as tolerances tolerancing of two cylinders will not be the same if they are
of location, orientation and/or runout in certain cases. As perpendicular or parallel. This will be an important issue in
we know, those tolerances always relate surfaces using the development that will follow.
specific symbols and, most often, data. This is summarized However, before going any further, we will explain why,
in Table 4. in this second stage, M G D E were preferred to surfaces for
the relative positioning of the two surfaces or "FI'RS. The
We will now examine, in the following sections, the details first and most important reason concerns the fact that, in
of these two basic stages and we will finally illustrate them practice, designers are doing just that. When considering the
with a complete example.
Table 6. Basic MGDE associations. (a) Point based associations. (b)
Plane based associations. (c) Line based associations.
3.2 Dimensioning and Tolerancing Elementary
Surfaces
PO~T I Merged Separated
Point ~ i~I ' -I~
As we explained earlier, in the first stage, when the designer
selects the surfaces involved in a T r R S , he must specify u., § /.§
(a)
dimensions and tolerances according to the type of surfaces
involved. Depending on the type he will have to choose
among a specific subset of dimensions and form tolerances.
These dimensions and tolerances, taken in the ANSI Y14.5M
PLANE I Merged I Parallel ~,~adicoznrls~ot
standard, are presented in Table 5. Of course, the proposed
Point ~3" I~, " ~ N.A. N.A.
tolerances are not compulsory. It will be left to the designer
to select only those that suit him best or that are most Pla.~ ~.o,D t,~,'=orh "-" . _ k ~,.~.z

appropriate for the part, given its application. (b) u~ e'. "" ,f .r // Uo~ f or 2_ 'h,. 1--

Table 4. Types of dimensions and tolerances according to their

app[ications.
I Concurrent Coneurrenl
LINE Merged Parallel Perpendicular converging ,ioll
r
Dimensions Tolerances I
Elemenlary snrraee Diameters. distances Form. profile
Pain! ~" t. ~ N.A. N.A. N.A..
I
; Plane 9@ . ,~, ~-~r. I I ~l._~lor ~lor_k ~. /~. N.~.
Sitrface association Distances.angles Location. orientation and
runout (c) u.* ~r ! or@or- r .~.// / %. /-- I .~.%.L
358 A. Desrochers and A. Cldment
relative positioning of two cylinders, for example, one attaches
dimensions and tolerances to their axes rather than their
surfaces. Indeed, the distance between two parallel cylinders
will be measured from one axis to the other. Additionally,
M G D E provide a practical and efficient tool when dealing
with higher classes of surfaces such as revolution, prismatic
and general surfaces. In these instances, the shape of the
surface may vary widely from one case to the next. Therefore,
the M G D E provides a standard means for representing and
thus positioning such surfaces. This is both handy and well
suited for C A D / C A M implementation. Consequently, for
these reasons and possibly others, we will consider the
relations between M G D E rather than surfaces or even T'FRS.
Furth~more, as we shall see, the relation between two
M G D E will he simplified as a set of relations between their
respective basic M G D E . Following this approach, we will
establish a list of all the possible topological relations between
basic M G D E , specifying for each the required dimensions
and suggested tolerance symbols. Then, we will establish
the rules controlling the combination of these elementary
associations of basic M G D E . This method will guide any
designer toward a complete and non-redundant dimensioning
and tolerancing scheme while leaving him some freedom of
choice whenever possible. Now, before going any further, let
us examine all three possible combinations of basic M G D E
and their proposed dimensions and tolerances.
3.3.1 Basic MGDE Associations
The survey we will present here is composed of three tables
illustrating, for each basic M G D E , the linear and angular
distances as well as the proper tolerance symbols needed in
order to position it with respect to any other basic M G D E .
Of course, every combination shown will be based on a
specific topological relation between a pair of basic M G D E .
These basic M G D E associations are presented in Table 6 and
are subject to the following comments:
The reader will have recognised the usual tolerance symbols
as presented in the ANSI Y14.5M standard. In addition to
these symbols we have defined, for the purpose of the table,
two new symbols corresponding to the linear and angular
distances to be specified on the drawing or model. These are:
Linear distance: ~r
Angular distance:
The inscription of these prescribed distances or angles on the
dra~,ing is, of course, compulsory, in order to obtain a
complete dimensioning and tolerancing scheme.
When several tolerance symbols are proposed, these are
placed in decreasing order of importance reflecting also the
relative values of their tolerance zones. Finally, mutually
exclusive tolerances are separated by commas.
The three tables present, as can be seen, some redundancies
with respect to one another. As a result, there are actually
only 19 distinct cases of basic M G D E associations.
3.3.2 Basic MGDE Combination Rules
Now that we have seen the directory of all possible dimen-
sioning and tolerancing schemes, we will establish four rules
concerning their combination when dealing with the association
of two M G D E of higher complexity. We will start by stating
these rules and then, we will proceed briefly to justify them.
Rule 1
Basic M G D E issued from the same original M G D E (also
called M G D E product) are not dimensioned or toleranced
with respect to one another.
Rule 2
The number of elementary association cases to be considered
shall never exceed the number given in the following formula:
Number of cases to be considered = E M G D E involved
-1
Rule 3
Each basic M G D E involved must be implicated in at least
one of the association cases considered.
Rule 4
Whenever possible, we shall give priority to association cases
involving at least one line.
As we should remember, M G D E products represent surfaces
or TTRS which should already have their own dimensions
and tolerances from previous stages. Consequently, there is
no need to consider here the combination of basic M G D E
belonging to a particular M G D E product representing a
surface or TTRS. This is the foundation of rule 1 and the
starting point for rule 2.
Rule 2 can be proved in a strict fashion using combinational
rules and set algebra. However, it can also be justified in a
more empirical way. Let us consider the case of two M G D E
products, each being composed of up to three basic M G D E .
To completely specify the relative position of both M G D E
products, one must first indicate the position of one basic
M G D E with respect to every other basic M G D E from the
second M G D E product. Then, the designer must specify the
position of all remaining basic M G D E from the first M G D E
product with any basic M G D E from the second one. This is
illustrated in Fig. 5, each link representing a relation between
two basic M G D E belonging to a different M G D E product.
Finally, all this can be translated into the equation presented
in rule 2.
Concerning the justification of rule 3, it is indirectly included
in the explanations for rule 2. In any case, it makes sense
that all basic M G D E be considered at least once in an
MGDE product I MGDE product
bu~ic MGDE - I = 5 - I = 4 relations Io consider
Fig. 5.
 A Dimensioning and Tolerancing Assistance Model 359

association case. This is necessary in order for the dimensioning M.G.D.E. I M.G.D.E. 2 ~ssoc;ation
and tolerancing to be complete and non-redundant. Case no ~ / r Choice
Rule 4 does not need to be as strictly enforced as the l / / ~,./-- x
previous one. However, we strongly recommend that it be 2 9 / •
followed and we will demonstrate why. Indeed, as basic 3 [i / "%./_. X
M G D E the line is somewhat different to the other basic
M G D E since it has four degrees of invariance whereas the 5 9 9 / ,~
point and the plane each have three. Consequently, the line r ,r
is more constrained than the point or the plane which, in (a)
turn, means that it may, in some cases, require a higher
number of parameters to set its position. This is actually the
case for the positioning of two concurrent but not converging
lines for which both a distance and an angle are necessary.
Moreover, current drawing practice shows that very often,
distances and angles are indicated between lines, or axes. |
Finally, we may also mention that the line is the only basic
|
M G D E which is implicated in every complex M G D E or i| |
M G D E product. Therefore, for all these reasons, we have
decided that rule 4 should, indeed, be a rule.
9 |
This concludes our demonstration of the combination rules
pertaining to the dimensioning and tolerancing process of
M G D E associations. We will now proceed to apply this
(b)
method on a simple, representative example.
Fig. 6. General TTRS/revolution TTRS association. (a) Potential
association cases. (b) Resulting dimensioning and tolerancing.
3.3.3 Example
The example we will develop to illustrate this method will be 4. R e a l i s a t i o n of a P r o t o t y p e
that of a complete or general TTRS associated to a TTRS or
In this section, we shall present the outlines of the prototype
surface of revolution. The relation between these two TTRS
that was constructed to validate our concept. The software
or surfaces will be such that their axis will be concurrent and
we developed was built upon the C A T I A C A D / C A M system
converging.
According to rule 2, the number of association cases to and the K E E expert-system generator. We will give a brief
overview of the main feature of this system in the following
consider is given by the formula:
lines.
Number of cases to consider = E basic M G D E - 1 On the C A D / C A M side of the prototype, we may signal
Number of cases to consider = 5 - 1 = 4 these characteristics:

In this instance, the list of potential association cases are
shown in Fig. 6(a) along with the selected ones according to
rules 2, 3 and 4. The corresponding dimensioning and
tolerancing is taken from Table 6 for each one of the possible
cases. Finally, the resulting dimensioning and tolerancing on
the drawing is shown in Fig. 6(b). On this drawing, the
number besides each tolerance symbol or basic dimension
refers to an association case indicated in Fig. 6(a). As it can
be seen on that drawing, the relative positioning of both
M G D E is complete and non-redundant.
Moreover, some freedom is left to the designer when it
comes to the inscription of basic dimensions and tolerance
symbols. For example, for association case 3 a plane con-
structed from the two axes was chosen rather than using the
axis of M G D E 2 directly, as the association case would have
prescribed. These initiatives are certainly not to be discouraged
or forbidden since no system can replace the designer when
it comes to indicating a dimension or tolerance in a way that
is most significant from a technological point of view.
Consequently, our system only guides the user, making sure
that all necessary information will indeed be on the drawing
or model. Furthermore, as we mentioned earlier, most of the
tolerances suggested in Table 6 are not compulsory.
The $imu/taneous Use of Both B.Rep and C.S.G.
Models
Indeed, the geometrical description of planes is extracted
from the B.Rep model whereas the equations for the other
classes of surfaces were obtained from the C.S.G. model. On
this, we may also add that, for simplicity's sake, we have
only considered, as elementary surfaces: plane, sphere,
cylinder, cone and toms, the latter two being considered as
surfaces of revolution.
The Description of the Mechanism
In our prototype, the mechanism is taken into account. This
is done by including the various models describing the parts
of an assembly into yet another model integrating them
altogether. Using special functions developed for that purpose,
the designer can then specify all the contacts between the
functional surfaces for all the parts. These contacts have,
moreover, their own geometric descriptions, including a vector
indicating their direction which is necessary when using them
in tglerance chains to generate TTRS.
Additionally, the expert-system side of our .prototype
features the following characteristics:
360 A. Desrochers and A. CIt~ment
An Object Oriented Approach
This is somehow natural since KEE, the expert-system
generator we used, is itself object oriented. Nevertheless, this
proved to be particularly well suited for our task. T'FRS
were considered as objects within our system. Moreover,
programming was done in LISP, a language working on lists
of objects.
The Construction of TTRS and MGDE Trees
As we showed earlier on, from a functional point of view, a
part can be represented by its TFRS and M G D E tree, also
relating" to a corresponding dimensioning and tolerancing
scheme:Such trees are represented within our system as well
as the database, itself arranged as a set of trees, each one
regrouping a Class of objects.
This concludes our rather brief description of the prototype
we have developed. The objective was to present an implemen-
tation of our model to show its possible integration within
actual C A D systems.
5. Conclusion
Our model proposes a systematic dimensioning and tolerancing
assistance to the designer. Moreover, TFRS and their corre-
sponding M G D E also constitute a sensible way to integrate
dimensions and tolerances within C A D systems. Consequently,
it is reasonable to say that our model and its dimensioning
and tolerancing procedure, fulfils the requirements we had
set at the beginning of this paper.
Additionally, we found that our model was promising in
several related areas. These areas and the potential develop-
ment of our concept were the following:
1. The mathematical formulation of tolerance zones.
It seems that our model provides a solid basis for the
representation of tolerance zones by matrices or screws.
Indeed, these two mathematical tools require the definition
of reference frames which can be regarded as our MGDE.
From here, this would open the way for the resolution of
tolerance analysis and the synthesis problem.
2. The modelling of clearances and spaces.
If our model is suited for the representation of parts, it
could also very well be adapted to the representation of
clearances and spaces within a mechanism. A clearance or
gap could then be considered as a fictitious solid for which
TTRS and related dimensions could be defined. This could
he quite useful when handling tolerance allocation or
synthesis problems.
3. The generation of measurement sequences.
With the increasing use of coordinate measuring machines
(CMM), there is a growing need for measurement sequence
planning software. On this, our model can be used, since
CMM measure surfaces, which is what our model is all
about. Therefore, our concept could serve as a basis for a
system in which T'FRS, and therefore surfaces related by
dimensions, would have to be measured in the same setting
and using the same probe, whenever possible. This would
provide a sensible way for measurements planning.
4. The generation of process oriented TTRS.
Again as machining produces surfaces, this gives an advan-
tage to our model in a process-oriented context. Therefore,
we could generate "I'TRS representing machining operations
and their associated dimensions and tolerances. In view of
this, the whole machining process could translate into a
corresponding TTRS tree. Moreover, the problem of
tolerance transfer or stack-up could "boil down" to the
translation from a design TTRS tree to a process "I~RS
tree.
Of course, the implementation of these ideas would certainly
not be straightforward and would therefore require much
development. However, some of them are already under
scrutiny and seem quite promising. In any case, work in this
field is far from over and we hope our approach will be of
use in the future.
References
1. A. H. Bond and S. Z. Ahmed, "Knowledge-based automatic
dimensioning", Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, Compu-
tational Mechanics Publications, 4(1), pp. 32-40, 1989.
2. N. S. Bernstein, K. Preiss, "Representation of tolerance infor-
mation in solid models", in International Conference on CAD/
CAM and A M T in lsra#l, CIRP Sessions on tolerancing for
function in a CAD/CAM environment, Proceedings, vol. 2,
Jerusalem, Israel. 11-14 December 1989, pp.37-48.
3. A. A. G. Requicha, "Toward a theory of geometric tolerancing",
The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2(4), pp.45-60,
Winter 1983.
4. A. A. G. Requicha and S. C. Chan, "Representation of geometric
features, tolerances, and attributes in solid modelers based
on constructive geometry", IEEE Journal of Robotics and
Automation, RA-2(3), pp. 156-166, September 1986.
5. R. Weill, "Integrating dimensioning and tolerancing in computer-
aided process planning", Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manu-
facturing, 4(1/2), pp.41-48, 1988.
6. L. E. Farmer and C. A. Gladman, "Tolerance technology -
Computer-based analysis", Annals of the CIRP, 35(1), pp. 7-10,
1986.
7. R. Jayaraman and V. Srinivasan, "Geometric tolerancing: I.
Virtual boundary requirements", IBM Journal of Research and
Development, 33(2), pp. 90-104, March 1989.
8. R. Jayaraman and V. Srinivasan, "Virtual boundary requirements
and conditional tolerances in mechanical design", IBM Research
Report, RC 12942, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, 1987.
9. V. Srinivasan and A. A. G. Requicha, "A proposal for the
definition of size tolerancing", A N S I Y14.5.1 Meeting, Chicago,
25-26 April 1991.
10. J. U. Turner, "A vector space approach to the mathematical
representation of tolerances on mechanical parts", IBM Technical
Report, T R 00.3383, 13 May 1986.
11. J. U. Turner and M. J. Wozny, "Tolerances in computer-aided
geometric design", The Visual Computer, Springer, vol. 3, 1987,
pp. 214-226.
12. A. Wirtz, "Vectorial tolerancing for production quality control
and functional analysis in design", CIRP International Working
Seminar on Computer-Aided Tolerancing, Penn State University,
16-17 May 1991, pp.77-84.
13. "Technique de mesure en coordonn~es; Principes g~om~triques
fondamentaux et d6finitions', Norme provisoire 257 800, Norme
enregistr6e de I'Association Suisse de Normalisation, Soci~t~
Suisse des Constructeurs de Machines, 1988.

14. F. Kimura and H. Suzuki, "Treatment of tolerances in product
modeling environment", International Conference on CAD~CAM
and AMT in Israel, CIRP Conference, Jerusalem, Israel, 11-14
December 1989.
15. S. A. Irani, R. O. Mittal and E. A. Lehtihet, "Tolerance chart
optimization", InternationalJournal of Production Resarch, 27(9),
pp. 1531-1552, 1989.
16. P. H. Gu and H. A. Eimaraghy, "Expert tolerancing consultant for
goemetric modelling", Proceedings of Manufacturing International
'88, Symposium on Product and Process Design, ASME, vol. 1,
April 1988, pp. 17-22.
17. B. Charles, A. CI6ment, A. Desrochers, P. Pelissou and A.
Rivi/:re, "Controlling a mechanical part designed with a feature
A Dimensioning and Tolerancing Assistance Model 361
based system", Computer Integrated Quality System in CIM, IFIP
T.C.5/W.G.5.3. Working Conference, Belgrade, Yugoslavia,
20-23 June 1989, pp. 201-214.
18. B. Charles, A. CI6ment, A. Desrochers, P. Pelissou and A.
Riviere, "Toward a computer aided functional tolerancing model",
International Conference on CAD/CAM and AMT in Israel, CIRP
Sessions on tolerancingfor function in a CAD~CAM environment,
Proceedings, vol. 2, Jerusalem, Israel, 11-14 December 1989,
section C-2-4, pp. !-7.
19. A. CI6ment, A Desrochers and A. Riviere, "Theory and practice
of 3-D tolerancing for assembly", CIRP International Working
Seminar on Computer-Aided Tolerancing, Penn State University,
16-17 May 1991, pp. 25-55.