An Application of Selected

Artificial Intelligence Techniques

to Engineering Analysis
by

Bruce W.R. Forde

B . A . S c , The University of British Columbia, 1983
M . A . S c , The University of British Columbia, 1984

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of

the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy
in

The Faculty of Graduate Studies

Department of Civil Engineering

We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard

The University of British Columbia

April, 1989
© Bruce W.R. Forde

/
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the
University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference
and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly
purposes may be granted by the Head of the Department of Civil Engineering or by his or her
representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall
not be allowed without my written permission.

Department of Civil Engineering

The University of British Columbia

1956 Main Mall
Vancouver, V6T 1Y3
Canada

April, 1989
Abstract
This thesis explores the application of some of the more practical artificial intelligence (Al)

techniques developed to date in the field of engineering analysis. The limitations of conventional

computer-aided analysis programs provide the motivation for knowledge automation and

development of a hybrid approach for constructing and controlling engineering analysis software.

Artificial intelligence technology used in this thesis includes: object-oriented programming,

generic application frameworks, event-driven architectures, and knowledge-based expert systems.

Emphasis is placed on the implementation-independent description of objects, classes, methods,

and inheritance using a simple graphical representation.

The kinds of knowledge used in the analysis process, the programs that control this

knowledge, and the resources that perform numerical computation are described as part of a hybrid

system for engineering analysis. Modelling, solution, and interpretation activities are examined for

a generic problem and a control framework is adopted for event-driven operation.

An intelligent finite element analysis program called "SNAP" is developed to demonstrate the

application of A l in the numerical analysis of two-dimensional linear problems in solid and

structural mechanics. A step-by-step discussion is given for the design, implementation, and

operation of the SNAP software to provide a clear understanding of the principles involved.

The general conclusion of this thesis is that a variety of artificial intelligence techniques can

be used to significantly improve the engineering analysis process, and that much research is still to

be done. A series of projects suitable for completion by graduate students in the field of structural

engineering are described at the end of the thesis.

ii
Contents
Abstract ii
Contents iii
Figures v
Tables vi
Acknowledgements vii

1. Introduction 1
1.1. Problem 1
1.1.1. Specialization 1
1.1.2. Reliability 4
1.1.3. Knowledge-Transfer 5
1.1.4. Responsibility 6

1.2. Solution 7
1.2.1. Conventional Systems 7
1.2.2. Intelligent Consultants/Interfaces 8
1.2.3. Hybrid Systems 9

1.3. Objectives and Organization 11

1.3.1. Artificial Intelligence Technology 11
1.3.2. Hybrid Systems for Engineering Analysis 12
1.3.3. Intelligent Finite Element Analysis 12

2. Artificial Intelligence Techniques 13

2.1. Background 13
2.1.1. Objectives of Artificial Intelligence 14
2.1.2. Major Topics 15

2.2. Reasoning 16
2.2.1. Logic and Theorem-Proving 16
2.2.2. Inference 19
2.2.3. Search and Problem-Solving 20

2.3. Representation 22
2.3.1. Rules 22
2.3.2. Frames 24
2.3.3. Scripts 26

2.4. Object-Oriented Methods " 27

2.4.1. Objects, Classes, Methods, and Inheritance 27
2.4.2. Application Frameworks 34

2.5. Knowledge-B ased Expert S ystems 36

2.5.1. Classification 36
2.5.2. Components 37
2.5.3. Applications 38

2.6. Development Tools 40

2.6.1. Programming Paradigms 40
2.6.2. Conventional Al Languages 43
2.6.3. Hybrid Languages 43
2.6.4. Higher-Level Approaches 44

iii
 2.7. Applications of A l Techniques in Engineering Analysis 45
2.7.1. Object-Oriented Programming 45
2.7.2. Generic Application Frameworks 45
2.7.3. Event-Driven Architectures 46
2.7.4. Knowledge-Based Expert Systems 46

3. Engineering Analysis 47
3.1. Knowledge 47
3.1.1. Modelling 48
3.1.2. Solution 49
3.1.3. Interpretation 51

3.2. Controllers 53
3.2.1. Controller Interface 54
3.2.2. Event-Driven Operation 55
3.2.3. Example 56

3.3. Intelligent Resources 58

3.3.1. Resource Interface 59
3.3.2. Goal-Driven Operation 59
3.3.3. Example 61

4. Intelligent Finite Element Analysis 63

4.1. Design 63
4.1.1. Objectives 64
4.1.2. Methodology 67

4.2. Implementation 71
4.2.1. Graphical Interface 71
4.2.2. External Procedures 79
4.2.3. Object Lists 81
4.2.4. Analytical Modelling and Interpretation 84
4.2.5. Numerical Modelling, Solution, and Interpretation 88
4.2.6. Program Control 94

4.3. Operation 102

4.3.1. User-Interface 102
4.3.2. Flow of Events 103
4.3.3. Goal-Driven Event-Generation 110

5. Conclusions and Recommendations 114

5.1. Conclusions 114
5.1.1. A l Techniques for Engineering Analysis 114
5.1.2. Comparison with Conventional Analysis 115

5.2. Recommendations for Further Research 116

5.2.1. Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Engineering Design 116
5.2.2. Knowledge Design for Engineering 116
5.2.3. Knowledge-Based Optimal Analysis 117

References 118
Appendix A : The Finite Element Formulation 128
Appendix B: Isoparametric Finite Elements 132

iv
Figures
1. Engineering Analysis Environment 3
2. Engineering Analysis Process 7
3. Existing Analysis Solutions 8
4. Proposed Analysis Solution 10
5. Truth Tables for the Basic Connectives 17
6. The Vocabulary of Logic 18
7. Forward-Chaining 20
8. Backward-Chaining 21
9. Rule Structure 23
10. A Typical Knowledge Framework 25
11. A Typical Knowledge Script 26
12. Graphical Representation of an Object 30
13. Graphical Representation of a Class 30
14. A Typical Object 33
15. A Typical Class 34
16. An Expandable Application Framework 35
17. KBES Classification within A l Technology 36
18. KBES Components 37
19. KBES used by an Event-Driven Analysis Program 39
20. The Evolution of Programming Paradigms 41
21. The NExpert Object Open A l Environment 44
22. Engineering Analysis Scenario 47
23. Modelling 48
24. Analytical Solution 50
25. Numerical Solution 50
26. Interpretation 51
27. A Typical Controller 53
28. TController Class Description 54
29. Event-Driven Operation 55
30. Modelling Controller 56
31. A Typical Intelligent Resource 58
32. TResource Class Description 59
33. Goal-Driven Operation 60
34. Solution Controller Resources 61
35. SNAP User-Interface 65
36. SNAP Abstraction Levels 66
37. SNAP Control Structure 68
38. SNAP Event Management 69
39. Window User-Interface 72
40. TWindow Class Description 73
41. Dialog User-Interface 74
42. TDialog Class Description 75
43. TDwgSizeDialog Class Description 76
44. Menu User-Interface 76
45. TApplication Class Description 77
46. Application Event-Driven Architecture 78
47. TVector Class Description 79
48. TMatrix Class Description 79
49. Banded Matrix Storage 80
50. TBandedMatrix Class Description 81
51. TLink Class Description 81
52. TList Class Description 82

V
Figures
53. TModelPart Class Hierarchy 85
54. TShape Class Hierarchy 86
55. TModelWindow Class Description 87
56. Node List Management 89
57. Shape Function Class Hierarchy 90
58. TGauss Class Hierarchy 91
59. TElement Class Hierarchy 92
60. TMesh Class Description 93
61. TNumericalModel Class Description 93
62. Descending Ownership Links 94
63. Ascending Ownership Links 95
64. Numerical Analysis Task Performance 96
65. Modelling Task Event Loop 97
66. Solution Task Event Loop 98
67. Interpretation Task Event Loop 98
68. TInferenceEngine Class Description 99
69. TRule Class Description 99
70. TStatement Class Description 100
71. TAction Class Description 100
72. Forward-Chaining Algorithm 101
73. Backward-Chaining Algorithm 101
74. SNAP User-Interface 102
75. Grid Spacing Dialog 103
76. Axes Dialog 103
77. Boundary Object 104
78. Thickness Dialog 105
79. Material Dialog 105
80. Boundary and Solid Objects 106
81. Concentrated Load Dialog 106
82. Boundary, Solid, and Load Objects 107
83. Displacements Dialog 108
84. Stresses Dialog 108
85. Stress Display 109
86. Errors Dialog 109
87. Error Display 110

Tables
1. Control Paradigms 42
2. Data Structures 42
3. TLink Class Methods 82
4. TList Class Methods 83
5. Rules HI

vi
Acknowledgements
The research described in this thesis was made possible by scholarships from the Natural Sciences

and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Deutscher Akademischer Austauchdienst

(DAAD), and the Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule Zurich (ETH). Additional funding was

provided by Dr.-Ing. Siegfried F. Stiemer during the final stages of the degree.

Many people influenced the direction of this research during my studies at the University of

British Columbia and the Universitat Stuttgart. In particular, Dr.-Ing. Siegfried F. Stiemer,

Dr. Alan D . Russell, Dr. Ricardo O. Foschi, Dr. Noel D . Nathan, Dr. F. Sassani, Mr. David J.

Halliday, P.Eng., and Mr. Harry K. Ng, P.Eng. provided important ideas that shaped the topic.

David Fayegh, Ibrahim Al-Hammad, and Tony Martin provided additional constructive criticism

and practical perspectives that helped to improve the final thesis. Finally, I must thank my friends

and family for bearing with me during the completion of this thesis.

Bruce W.R. Forde

vii
1. Introduction

Engineering analysis technology can be improved by blending artificial intelligence (Al)

into conventional application software. The main objective of this thesis is to

demonstrate the advantages/disadvantages offered to software developers and users by

A l techniques such as: object-oriented programming, generic application frameworks,

event-driven architectures, and knowledge-based expert systems that perform

goal-driven event-generation. This chapter describes the problems with the existing

methods for engineering analysis, the potential knowledge-based solutions, and the

structure and scope of this thesis.

1.1. Problem
The collage of interrelated complex activities shown in Fig. 1 displays an engineering analysis

environment focused on the research, development, and application of a central tool: the

engineering analysis program. Although conventional analysis software plays this key role, it is

notoriously complicated and unreliable. Improvements desired by the engineering profession must

start with an examination of the knowledge used by and transferred between the research,

development, and application environments.

1.1.1. Specialization

Modem engineering environments are designed to exploit expertise. Common sense supports this

delegation philosophy — tasks can usually be divided into specialized components. Specialization

and knowledge have an odd relationship in the scientific community. Consider two individuals:

one who performs specialized research, and another who wants to apply state-of-the-art techniques

in practice. If the specialist gains knowledge during the course of research, then the practitioner

has lost an equal amount of knowledge from the state-of-the-art. Recovery from this loss is only

possible if the practitioner becomes a specialist. Generalization of this scenario leads to two

1
conclusions: a great deal of specialized research is never used in practical applications due to time

and human factors; and the state-of-the-art is really determined by the current technology for

knowledge integration.

Some of the specialized environments considered in this thesis include: academic education

and research groups, software and hardware divisions of the computer industry, and professional

engineering analysis and design. Combinations of problems, solutions, applications, facilities,

and other constraints found in each of these environments produce a variety of unique highly

specialized programs.

Engineering education usually involves the construction of simple analysis tools to teach

fundamental principles. These programs concentrate on specific analysis problems that relate to the

educational curriculum or to the current research interests of the instructor. Little attention is paid

to implementation details due to the time and financial constraints of the academic environment.

General-purpose programs have been developed in exceptional cases; however, academic research

is predominantly specialized so that individual contributions can be completed within the

constraints of a degree programme. Specialized programs are rarely used outside of their original

development environment, although the published theoretical foundations of these programs are

often examined and implemented in new contexts by other researchers.

Professional research and development institutions have the resources to pursue more

complex problems than found in the academic community, so they should produce a higher quality

of computer software. General-purpose programs can be developed to provide efficient and

user-friendly solutions to practical engineering problems. Alternatively, extremely specialized

programs may be created for use in high-technology applications by experts.

2
 Education Implementation

Research Analysis

Engineering
Analysis
Program

Design

F i g . 1. Engineering Analysis Environment — Computer-aided engineering analysis methods

are influenced by research in academic and industrial contexts, by advancements in
hardware and software technologies, and by practical applications in analysis and
design. Conventional analysis software is notoriously complicated and unreliable due
to a lack of knowledge integration between these environments.

3
 Analysts and designers develop expertise while using analysis tools. Although their

knowledge cannot be easily described, it usually consists of a set of heuristics or rules-of-thumb.

User forums and training courses deal extensively with case studies that illustrate the highlights

and pitfalls of application software. Some of this expertise is transmitted back to the program

developers, at which point it is converted into new features, simplified interfaces, and enhanced

documentation.

Technological changes in the computer industry influence the kinds of solutions employed in

engineering analysis. Numerical procedures that would have strained the capacity of mainframe

computers only a few years ago are now being performed on personal computer workstations.

Theoretical methods previously abandoned due to their complexity have suddenly become practical

as a result of the computing revolution.

In general, the specialized knowledge found in academic, research, development, industrial,

and professional practice environments is not effectively utilized. The key word in this context is

"specialized" — knowledge associated with the complete analysis process is simply beyond the

comprehension of any single individual, and continued technological advancement through

specialized research will merely amplify this problem.

1.1.2. Reliability

Although engineering analysis has become an essential part of many industries, it is generally

acknowledged that the majority of existing computer software for analysis is complicated and

error-prone. Recent desire to improve the reliability of methods for engineering analysis has

prompted a dual effort, which is aimed at both analysts and software [53]. This approach is

somewhat shortsighted, as it fails to recognize that mandatory extensive training programmes for

all analysts are impractical, and that software applications are already subjected to extensive testing.

The quality of solutions obtained by analysts is best when the problem domain is within a

previously encountered range. Without sufficient background knowledge for a particular problem,

analysts have difficulty in making predictions about the nature of the results. In a situation where

4
there are no expectations, there can be no comparison of characteristics, trends, and properties as is

required to gain confidence in the solution. Analysts rightfully tend to be conservative, so in cases

where they have little experience they will often choose a well-known method to avoid the

consequences of a mistake due to improper usage of current technology.

The cause of reliability problems can be related to the lack of knowledge transferred from the

research source to the end-user during the creation of an analysis program. Typical programs

evolve in a cycle of: research, development, and application. Complete software programs are

built around the results and theories of several research projects. These programs grow with time

to include new theories and to handle more complex problems. Consider the implications of a new

highly specialized theory. If the program developers hear about this theory, and they consider it to

be relevant, then time and money will be allocated to the implementation of application software.

By the time the end-user sees the product, many errors in theory and implementation exist. Since

the end-user is neither the specialist who devised the theory nor the development expert who

implemented the software, use of this product will result in potential errors. Clearly, the cause of

this failure may not be attributed to poor software design or inadequate training of the analyst,

rather it stems from a basic failure in communication starting at the research source.

1.1.3. Knowledge-Transfer

Knowledge is usually passed from research and development environments to the analyst via

documentation. If the theory and implementation of analysis procedures are clearly described, and

if the analyst has time to read about them, then perhaps these procedures will be of use in a

practical application. However, most analysts do not have time to continually upgrade their

education, so technological advancements are not at their disposal. A better strategy provides

knowledge to the analyst when it is needed in the form of expert consultation. Unfortunately, this

approach is often too slow or too costly for extensive application, as even experts find it difficult to

cope with complex numerical analysis problems.

5
 The knowledge-transfer process could be automated using artificial intelligence (Al). When

McCarthy coined the name "artificial intelligence" in the late 1950's [12], overly optimistic

researchers predicted the overnight development of machines with human intellectual capacities.

Three decades have already passed without success, so a new generation of software companies

has started looking in more practical directions. Techniques originally developed under the

heading of A l are filtering into the mainstream computer industry where emphasis is placed on

results rather than on technology. To exploit practical aspects of A l in the improvement of the

knowledge-transfer process, techniques for knowledge reasoning and representation must be

developed for the engineering analysis domain.

1.1.4. Responsibility

Computer-aided engineering analysis is a relatively new technology. Not long ago, analysis

referred to hand calculations performed by an engineer. The invention of the finite element method

in the late 1950's added a new dimension to engineering analysis. Over the next two decades,

analysis procedures matured with the aid of database management, graphics, and other computing

tools. Application software integrated modelling and computation to provide powerful analysis

and design aids; however, the knowledge required to properly apply these tools quickly grew

beyond the expertise of the average analyst. By the end of the 1970's, it was clear that analysis

technology had reached an impasse, as expertise cannot be demanded from all analysts in a world

that relies on specialization.

Automation of the analysis process has not been achieved to date for one reason — the

responsibility for computerized tasks still belongs to the analyst. Even expert analysts are unable

to cope with the vast knowledge associated with analysis theory and implementation, so it is

unreasonable to expect an average engineer to reliably interpret analysis results unless provided

with some help. User-interaction must be raised to a higher level of abstraction and the computer

must assume responsibility for all low-level numerical and logical computations.

6
1.2. Solution
Engineering analysis may be defined as the examination of a physical structure to determine general

characteristics of its behaviour. This process is usually separated into modelling, solution, and

interpretation activities that are performed on the physical, analytical, and numerical levels of

abstraction shown in the conceptual model of Fig. 2. A clear understanding of the problems with

conventional analysis and the potential solutions offered by artificial intelligence techniques may be

obtained by comparing the user/computer interface for past, present, and future analysis solutions.

\ Behaviour /
Physical
I t
SC

Analytical ^§ Model Response

Numerical
J Model Response t
Solution

F i g . 2. Engineering Analysis Process [21] — Complex information relating to a physical

structure is used to compute desired facts about its physical behaviour. This is done in
a three-stage process of: modelling, solution, and interpretation.

1.2.1. Conventional Systems

The majority of existing engineering analysis programs directly interact with the user, as shown in

Fig. 3a. This kind of program shifts the burden of numerical computation to the machine, and

allows the analyst to work creatively in the analytical abstraction level, concentrating on the

preparation of numerical models and the interpretation of computed numerical response.

The nature of analysis activities is domain-dependent, so a general algorithm for modelling

and interpretation does not exist. In place of an algorithm, expert analysts employ heuristics to

guide them through analysis problems. These heuristics relate to all aspects associated with the

7
theory and implementation of the analysis process. Given considerable experience with a specific

analysis program, an analyst will likely find its solutions to be reliable. However, an

inexperienced analyst, lacking the appropriate heuristical knowledge, will often find the same

analysis program to be extremely unreliable. Thus, the reliability of an analysis program appears

to be related to the knowledge of the analyst as well as to the robustness of the program.

*
11
l|HI

1\
H ^
( KBES
J Consultant
\

f
[ Analysis [ Analysis ( KBES
^ Program ^ ^ Program Interface

Analysis
^ Program

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 3. Existing Analysis Solutions.
(a) Conventional Systems — the analyst directly operates the analysis program.

(b) Intelligent Consultants — the analyst is aided by a consultant in operating the analysis program.

(c) Intelligent Interfaces — the intelligent program operates the analysis program for the analyst.

1.2.2. Intelligent Consultants/Interfaces

The reliability of an analysis program can be improved by providing analysts with an expert

consultation facility. Experts have heuristical knowledge that relates to numerical modelling and

interpretation activities. Several artificial intelligence programs such as S A C O N [8] have been

developed to act as consultants. Although expert consultation can help an inexperienced analyst

use a sophisticated analysis program, the analyst remains fully responsible for all conventional

analysis tasks as shown in Fig. 3b. This implies that the consultant approach offers only a

temporary solution to existing problems, as analysis programs will surely become more complex to

provide more advanced analyses in the future.

8
 A more recent approach to this problem involves the use of intelligent interface programs as

shown in Fig. 3c. In contrast to consultant systems, where the engineer communicates directly

with the analysis program, interface systems are intended to act as intermediaries that shield the

engineer from the complexity of the analysis program [96]. This approach permits the engineer to

work on a higher level of abstraction, and to let the A l program deal with the tedious details

associated with numerical modelling and interpretation. Although expert systems can provide quite

reliable solutions by heuristic means, artificial intelligence technology is still in its infancy and

engineers cannot yet solely rely on such programs. This means that the determination of whether

the intelligent interface has properly modelled and interpreted the analysis problem still lies with the

engineer, who under these circumstances is in no position to accept such responsibility.

1.2.3. Hybrid Systems

The primary flaw in the existing systems shown in Fig. 3 is that analysis programs are complicated

and unreliable. They are too overwhelming for direct use (even with expert consultation), and they

are too unreliable for heuristic operation by machines. Analysis programs can be divided into

many logical components. This division process need only continue until all components are made

small enough that their purpose and function can be uniquely defined. Once this has been

completed, all facts are contained in a single cognitive space and a framework of knowledge-based

expert systems such as that shown in Fig. 4 can be used to obtain the best available solution for a

given problem. The most significant difference between this proposed system and the existing

systems is that in the new approach the computer has assumed responsibility for all low-level

numerical and logical computations.

Transferring the responsibility for program operation to the computer implies a potentially

higher degree of reliability from analysis results due to the limitations of the human mind.

However, this is only true if the computer and human use the same data and the same reasoning

mechanisms. If a problem can be adequately represented using current artificial intelligence

technology, it is quite likely that the computer will be more reliable than the human. This means

9
that it is essential to separate the analysis process into problems that can be represented using

current artificial intelligence technology.

At the lowest levels of the hybrid solution exist intelligently interfaced components of the

analysis problem called resources. Each of these components are self-contained units that have

limited access to the rest of the system, and they are singularly responsible for the management of

their own data and procedures. Object-oriented programming techniques described later in this

thesis provide exactly this paradigm — domain-specific data and procedures may be encapsulated

into intelligent objects that know how to behave.

At one level higher than any analysis component exists an intelligent controller program that

is responsible for the selection and application of a group of lower level components or controllers.

Knowledge-based expert system technology described later in this thesis provides the goal- and

event-driven inference mechanisms required by these controller programs.

I f I

£ | Controllers

^••j Intelligent Resources

F i g . 4. Proposed Analysis Solution — Intelligent analysis systems can be assembled from a

collection of self contained objects that are controlled using Al techniques.

10
1.3. Objectives and Organization
This thesis focuses on the application of a few practical techniques from the field of artificial

intelligence in the methods used for engineering analysis. The problems examined include:

(1) Identification of applicable artificial intelligence technology.

(2) Design of a hybrid system for engineering analysis.

(3) Development of an intelligent finite element analysis program.

1.3.1. Artificial Intelligence Technology

The second chapter of this thesis describes current artificial intelligence technology, and identifies

techniques that may be appropriate for engineering analysis. Traditional fields of A l are examined

along with the more practical tools that have emerged during the last decade.

Fundamental principles of logic and theorem-proving are given as a prelude to the main

techniques for search, inference, and general problem-solving found in typical artificial intelligence

applications. The basics of scientific reasoning are strengthened by a discussion of methods for

knowledge representation and by a detailed description of the object-oriented approach.

Almost all existing applications of A l in engineering belong to a group of elementary

products called knowledge-based expert systems (KBES) — programs that mimic the

decision-making processes of an expert in a particular domain. The concepts behind expert

systems are presented with reference to a proposed hybrid system for engineering analysis.

The development tools examined include: conventional A l languages (Lisp, Prolog,

Smalltalk), hybrid languages (Object Pascal, C++) and higher-level approaches (NExpert Object).

Emphasis is placed on the hybrid environment (Object Pascal and C) used later in this thesis for the

development of an intelligent finite element analysis program.

11
1.3.2. Hybrid Systems for Engineering Analysis

The third chapter of this thesis oudines a proposed technique for the automation of the engineering

analysis process. A general (but realistic) understanding is needed for the kinds of knowledge, the

required KBES technology, and the potential interface with intelligent resources in the engineering

analysis domain. This is achieved by using a detailed scenario to illustrate the potential operation

of a fully completed hybrid system.

Controllers and intelligent resources shown in Fig. 4 are described for a generic engineering

analysis problem. The data, inference, and control strategies used by K B E S controllers is

explained using an example for the selection and application of a group of lower level components

or controllers. A description of the protocol for low-level resources is given for subsequent

development of an intelligent finite element analysis program.

1.3.3. Intelligent Finite Element Analysis

The fourth chapter of this thesis deals with the development of an intelligent finite element analysis

program called "SNAP" [30]. SNAP represents the third generation in a series of programs that

use isoparametric elements for the numerical analysis of two-dimensional linear problems in solid

and structural mechanics [24, 25]. The roots of SNAP can be traced back to a conventional

analysis program called "NAP". A second program called "Object NAP" was developed to

demonstrate the advantages of the object-oriented approach. The third and final program applied

several A l techniques that prompted the name "Smart" NAP — SNAP. The primary features of

SNAP are: object-oriented design within the GenApp event-driven generic application framework;

hybrid control for modelling, solution, and interpretation; and goal-driven event-generation using a

knowledge-based expert system. A step-by-step discussion is given for the design,

implementation, and operation of the SNAP software to provide a clear understanding of the main

advantages offered by artificial intelligence techniques for engineering analysis.

12
2. Artificial Intelligence Techniques

Research in the field of artificial intelligence (Al) is currently focussed on the practical

aspects of making computers more useful and on understanding the principles that

make intelligence possible [100]. Computing techniques developed as part of this trend

can potentially be used to improve the reliability and efficiency of engineering analysis

software. Unfortunately, the majority of A l tools exist solely on the drawing boards of

imaginative developers. This chapter surveys some of the most popular approaches in

A l , selects a few tools that appear useful for the analysis problem domain, and shapes

these tools into a form that is useful for direct application in this thesis. Emphasis is

placed on topics such as: object-oriented programming, event-driven architectures, and

knowledge-based expert systems for goal-driven event-generation.

2.1. Background
Artificial intelligence technology has a short and stormy history. Scientific foundations for the

formalization and mechanization of the "laws of thought", as proposed by logicians and

philosophers such as Boole [11], were not applied to computers until 1950 when Turing explicitly

stated that a computer could be programmed to exhibit intelligent behaviour [89]. This statement

created intense optimism and prompted predictions for the overnight development of machines with

human intellectual capacities. Thefirsttime "artificial intelligence" was used in print came in 1956

with the proposal for a conference organized by McCarthy [12]. Aside from founding the field of

A l , those who attended the Dartmouth conference were probably amongst the first researchers to

recognize the complexity of the business of artificial intelligence [17].

After years of arduous labour with general-purpose systems, aimed at academic topics such

as language comprehension and vision, attention was drawn towards projects with potential for

immediate success. In the early 1980's, application of expert knowledge to difficult problems by

"expert systems" brought new life into the A l dream. Several research teams formed companies

13
which advertised products that claimed to be nothing short of a "brain in a box". However,

bringing this visionary technology to the marketplace was not as easy as expected, and optimism

faded once again. Recently, a second generation of A l companies have enjoyed success based on

the use of solution-oriented products which employ the best features of all available technologies.

Methods originally developed under the guise of A l have started to filter into the mainstream

computer industry where emphasis is placed on results rather than on technology.

Although artificial intelligence has not appeared overnight, considerable advancement has

been achieved. The current state-of-the-art, some major topics, and descriptions of the practical

solutions emerging in the field of A l are described in subsequent sections.

2.1.1. Objectives of Artificial Intelligence

Research in artificial intelligence serves two groups of people [100]. Computer scientists and

engineers need to know about A l in order to make computers more useful. Psychologists,

linguists, and philosophers need to know about A l in order to understand the principles of

intelligence. A symbiotic relationship is required between these two areas of research in the quest

for an understanding of intelligence. This leads to the conclusion that learning how to make

computers intelligent will help us to understand our own intelligence.

Cognitive computers are not likely to appear in the near future, but many short-term

objectives will certainly produce "smarter" computers over the next few years. Mainstream

computing environments have already seen the effects of research that was once found only in

artificial intelligence laboratories. Xerox's P A R C (Palo Alto Research Center) is responsible for

many key concepts of object-oriented languages and for many aspects of user-interface on the

current generation of personal computers. This includes: bit-mapped screens, multibutton mice,

menus, overlapping windows, refined class system concepts, and the object-oriented philosophy.

Some of the most important problems to be solved in the field of A l deal with the classical

objectives — the central problem of artificial intelligence is the simultaneous production of good

candidates for each of three ingredients: the representation language, the inference regime, and the

14
particular domain knowledge [12]. The fact that methods for knowledge representation and

reasoning have not yet been standardized indicates that a significant amount of research is still

needed. As the state-of-the-art technology gradually improves for this central problem,

development tools must be created to deal with knowledge in ways that are suited to the needs of

the computer scientists and engineers who want to apply A l in their domain.

At this time, the primary objective for A l in the field of engineering analysis is the

establishment of "artificial intelligence literacy" in the engineering research community. Over the

next few years this increased awareness will produce more applications of A l to the modelling,

solution, and interpretation tasks in the analysis problem, resulting in "smarter" analysis software.

2.1.2. Major Topics

The field of artificial intelligence is composed of many fields of study. Some of the major topics in

current research are:

• searching
• problem-solving
• logic and uncertainty
• common-sense knowledge
• knowledge-based expert systems
• robotics
• vision and pattern recognition
• real-world interfacing
• natural-language processing
• machine learning

Some of these topics represent building blocks which can be applied to other areas of A l or even in

conventional programming applications. Techniques developed for searching, solving problems,

and manipulating logic have been used extensively in A l applications such as expert systems as

well as in conventional applications such as word-processors and spreadsheets.

15
2.2. Reasoning
Intelligence is often equated with the ability to reason or to think about knowledge, so the creation

of artificial intelligence requires some form of automated reasoning. Reasoning may also be

considered as computation used to discover or to formulate new ideas based on known facts. The

tools for formulating an argument, finding the necessary information, and drawing conclusions are

discussed in subsequent sections.

2.2.1. Logic and Theorem-Proving

Scientific reasoning relies heavily on the use of predicate calculus — a language of expressing and

dealing with logic as formulae. This language has a rich vocabulary, of which only a small portion

is necessary in this context. More detailed descriptions of the philosophy of logic and its

applications are available from several reliable sources [35].

Predicates

A predicate is a function that maps object arguments into Boolean values (TRUE or FALSE). Each

of the arguments to a predicate must be a term. Terms may be constant symbols, variables, or

function results. Constant symbols include names, values, and descriptions such as: n o d e - 1 ,

10, and yielding. Variables may take on quantities described by constant symbols. Functions

used as terms in predicate expressions evaluate to constant symbols. In fact, a predicate is merely

a simple function which evaluates to a Boolean constant. A predicate with a set of proper terms is

called an atomic formula and is the basic building block of all logical statements. Examples of

predicates called "On" and "Equal" used in valid formulae are:

On ( A, x )

Equal ( x, y )

The first formula will return T R U E if the constant A is "On" the variable x, while the second will

return T R U E only if two variables x and y are "Equal". Quotation marks are used in the preceding

sentence, as function internal operation may not necessarily match implications of function names.

16
A l Languages such as Lisp provide flexible methods for defining predicate functions which do

exactly what the programmer wants; hence, "Equal" could be defined to mean having equal values

or even sharing the same location in the computer's memory.

Connectives

Atomic formulae may be combined using connectives to form more sophisticated statements. The

English names for the common connectives are: a n d , or, not, and implies; however, predicate

calculus uses the symbols: &, V , —., => to simplify the construction of universal statements. If p

and q are formulae in predicate calculus language, then (p & q ), (p V q ), (-ip ), and (p => q )

are also formulae. The Boolean values for each of these combinations can be expressed in a truth

table like that shown in Fig. 5.

p & q P V q
TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE

TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE

q
TRUE FALSE

TRUE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE

FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE TRUE

Fig. 5. Truth Tables for the Basic Connectives [ 3 5 ] .

Quantifiers

In order to make statements of any practical use, references to variables must be made by using

quantifiers. The universal quantifier V indicates that something applies in all cases. The following

example indicates that anything having feathers is a bird [100]:

V x [ Feathers (x ) => Bird (x ) ]

17
The existential quantifier 3 indicates that something applies in at least one case. The following

example indicates that there is at least one object that is a bird [100]:

3 x [ Bird (x ) ]

The vocabulary of logic is summarized graphically in Fig. 6. Objects, variables, and function

results are terms combined with predicates to make atomic formulae. Connectives and quantifiers

may be used with atomic formulae to create more sophisticated formulae. Finally, these formulae

are used as statements in logical inference procedures described in the next section.

Objects Variables Functions

Support

Predicates Terms
On V \

Atomic Formulae
Negation

Connectives Literals Quantifiers

n /\ av

Well-formed Formulae
V x [ On ( A , x ) => Equal (x, Support ( A )) ] Statements

Fig. 6. The Vocabulary of Logic [100].

18
2.2.2. Inference

There are several kinds of inference techniques used in artificial intelligence including: deduction,

abduction, and induction. The difference between each of these inference techniques is determined

by the robustness of the approaches. Deduction is "legal inference" because given true axioms the

inferences drawn will also be true [17]. The deduction paradigm is:

Deduction

From: a, ( a =^ b )

Infer: b

Abduction is a type of inference that offers plausible explanations to observed facts when these

facts happen to be consequences of axioms (as opposed to conditions used in deduction). This is

not "legal inference" because the implication predicate ( => ) does not guarantee the exclusive

causality assumed in this logic. The abduction paradigm is:

Abduction

From: b, ( a => b )

Infer: a

Generalization of observed facts is called induction. Obviously, this is also not "legal inference",

but as with abduction, it may be a very useful kind of logic. The induction paradigm is:

Induction

From: P ( a ), P ( b ), . . .

Infer: V x [P(x )]

19
2.2.3. Search and Problem-Solving

Problem-solving is a fundamental part of artificial intelligence. Searching for a solution, making

logical decisions based on the available facts, and efficiently applying logic may be oriented

towards specific problem types or programming implementations [77]. Given a set of observed

facts and known rules represented using predicate calculus, there are many inference strategies

which could be used to find the desired solution. Two basic deductive inference schemes are

discussed in this section: the forward-chaining and backward-chaining methods.

Forward-chaining applies deductive reasoning to unify concepts and to derive new axioms.

A simple example [94] can be used to illustrate how this works. A set of rules can be

consecutively executed to infer new facts by dynamically manipulating the context information as

shown in Fig. 7. Starting with the lowest rule (A => D), the fact "D" may be deduced since "A" is

in the context. Since "D" may now be added to the facts where " C " already exists, the second rule

(C & D => F) can be used to deduce "F". Similarly, the third rule (F & B => Z) can now be used

to deduce "Z". This kind of inference is useful if a general understanding of a problem area is

required; however, randomly applying inference rules may generate many useless formulae.

F &B => Z F & B => Z F & B => Z

C&D F C & D => F C & D => F
A => D A => D A => D
RULES RULES RULES

F i g . 7. Forward-Chaining [94].

20
 Posed with the question of whether a specific fact is implied by the current context,

backward-chaining (Fig. 8) is a more appropriate inference method. With this method, the user

simply, asks whether a given fact exists. If the fact does not exist, a series of new goals are

hypothesized using abduction. A n examination of the conditions required to meet the

consequences implied by the desired fact leads to a deductive inference chain which is identical to

the one produced by forward-chaining. The only difference between the two approaches lies in the

method in which the data and rules are searched.

FACTS

D not here

WamD

need A D here
F & B => Z F & B => Z F&B => Z
C&D F C & D => F C&D => F
A => D A => D A => D 4-
RULES RULES

FACTS FACTS

have Z

F & B => Z F & B => Z F & B => Z

C & D => F C&D
=> F C & D => F
A => D A => D A => D

RULES RULES RULES

Fig. 8. Backward-Chaining [94].

21
2.3. Representation
Humans use knowledge to reason and to achieve goals, yet the substance or representation of their

knowledge is largely unknown. Machines must also have some technique for storing the

knowledge used by their reasoning processes. A human with a fine-tuned understanding of a

specific problem domain is called an expert. A machine can only hope to compete with the expert

if the domain-specific knowledge can be expressed using a representation which reflects the natural

structure of the problem and its solution. Some common ways to represent knowledge associated

with engineering analysis are presented in subsequent sections.

2.3.1. Rules

Memory organization is a key facet of knowledge representation. Tasks requiring expertise for

efficient performance may be automated using rule-based systems. This approach is usually

applied in areas where logic cannot be easily presented in an algorithm. Heuristics can be captured

in a set of rules for use in a variety of programs.

Theorem-proving systems use deductive statements to arrive at hypotheses. This kind of rule

is useful for classification problems such as the identification of a disease or the selection of a

computer configuration. A theorem-proving rule has the following format:

if conditions then hypothesis

At the other end of the spectrum, production systems use evocative statements to achieve

goals [17]. This kind of rule is useful for invoking operations when certain conditions have been

satisfied, such as telling someone to go on a diet if they have exceeded their normal weight level by

a given margin. A production rule has the following format:

if conditions then do actions

22
 A mixture of deductive and evocative statements is adopted in this thesis to provide the most

versatile representation. A mixed rule has the following format:

if conditions then hypothesis and do actions

The structure of a rule is graphically shown in Fig. 9. Components of this structure include

the L H S (left-hand side) and the RHS (right-hand side). The LHS consists of a list of conditions

which may contain all sorts of data (numerical, symbolical, etc.), but the result of each statement

is Boolean. The RHS consists of a hypothesis and a list of actions to perform when the hypothesis

has been proven T R U E . A l l Boolean statements on the LHS must be T R U E to imply the RHS of

the rule. If this occurs, the hypothesis (a single Boolean statement) is set to T R U E , and the

procedures stored in the list of actions are invoked.

if...

, L
Conditions

then...
Hypothesis Hypothesis
Condition 1
Condition 2
Action 1
Condition 3
Action 2
Condition 4
Action 3
Condition 5

Condition M Action N

and do . . .
t
Actions

Fig. 9. Rule Structure [58].

23
2.3.2. Frames

A variety of strategies, known as "structured logic representations", have been developed to

integrate the basic tools presented in the preceding sections. This includes the work of Minsky

[53] on "frames" and the work of Schank and Abelson [74] on "scripts". Both methods are based

on the synthesis of declarative and procedural representations into a single package. Minsky

describes the frame concept as follows:

A 'frame' is a data structure for representing a stereotyped situation... Attached to each

frame are several kinds of information. Some of this information is about how to use
the frame. Some is about what one can expect to happen next. Some is about what to
do if these expectations are not confirmed.

This definition introduces the crux of the representation issue: One can never cope with the many

details of a complex problem all at once. Problems should be solved by decomposition into several

stereotypical sub-problems.

Some differences in terminology have arisen since the advent of the frame concept. Although

they may be called "frames" in one text [100] and "schema" in another [17], Minsky's original

ideas and those of Kuipers [46] are usually acknowledged in frame implementations. The most

common approach is to define a frame as some sort of memory structure which holds data.

Information may be stored in this structure to support inheritance, instantiation, and specialization,

but the controller of the information retrieval network must provide the procedures for these tasks

[68]. Passive reliance upon a global controller defeats the potential declarative/procedural

synthesis offered by frame representations. Instead, frames can be installed into part of an

object-oriented class system which supports procedural attachment and object communication.

This allows frame specialization using domain-specific resources and subsequent construction of

modular systems with these specialist frames. A typical object-oriented knowledge framework is

shown in Fig. 10. Each frame has an arbitrary number of slots which may be filled with data,

rules, procedures or any other object.

24
 Frame: 1
Parent: 0
Slot: 1
Slot: 2
Slot: 3

Fig. 10. A Typical Knowledge Framework.

Minimal requirements of a complete frame representation includes the following properties:

description, instantiation, prediction, justification, variation, correction, perturbation, and

transformation [46]. Description of each problem is done by objects which are understood by the

user (primitive objects). Instantiation is simply the process of description which is guided by

predictions made using knowledge stored with the objects (defaults, rules-of-thumb, etc.).

Justification of the terminal attachments (slot values) within specified variation limits is provided

by restrictions in terms of permissible types or values of data. Anomalies in data (contradictions,

unused data, etc) may indicate that a frame is not correct and should be used to suggest an

appropriate replacement. Once a frame has been rejected, the known facts are placed into the new

reference using perturbation or transformation techniques.

25
2.3.3. Scripts

An alternative perspective for structuring stereotypical information was proposed by Shank and

Abelson [ 7 4 ] . Rather than describing the data structures associated with a typical situation, as

done in the frame concept, scripts describe the activities performed on and by those data structures.

Scripts provide the most effective means for process description. A series of operations

mutually associated with a situation can be listed in an activity diagram for use later to match and

execute a process. Pattern matching of processes is useful for classification systems, where the

goal is to identify a trend and to make predictions about the future (eg. stock market analysis).

Process description has more bearing on engineering analysis, as the execution of expert

operations is of paramount importance in modelling and interpretation tasks.

Activity: 1
Follows: 0
Actors
Props
Results

f 1
Activity: 2 Activity: 3 Activity: 4 ||
Follows: 1 Follows: 1 Follows: 1 If
Actors Actors Actors H
Props Props Props p
Results Results Results P

1 1
Activity: 5 Activity: 6
Follows: 2 Follows: 3,4
Actors Actors
Props Props
Results Results

Fig. 11. A Typical Knowledge Script.

26
2.4. Object-Oriented Methods
This section introduces the concepts and terminology of object-oriented programming used

throughout this thesis. A high-level conceptual model is presented for structuring programs and

data. This model can be used to explain relationships between objects, classes, and methods

regardless of the implementation language. The expandable application concept is introduced along

with some details of custom application development.

2.4.1. Objects, Classes, Methods, and Inheritance

The implementation of fundamental object-oriented concepts (objects, classes, methods, and

inheritance) varies from language to language; however, designers of object-oriented languages

have made a concerted effort to make the functionality of their systems as similar to others as

possible. Although the finite element analysis program described in the case study at the end of

this thesis was developed using Object Pascal and C, a language-independent model described in

the following sections may be used to illustrate its implementation.

Objects

An object is a self-contained entity composed of data and procedures. Unlike conventional

(procedural) programming techniques, which require the developer to represent data and

procedures separately and to manage their interaction, object-oriented programming encapsulates

specific kinds of data with the specific procedures to operate on that data.

Higher-level objects can be created by assembling groups of objects. These new objects

have the collective functionality offered by their sub-objects. Abstraction of object concepts can be

extended to complete software applications. A program assembled from objects can itself be an

object and thus be included in additional hierarchies.

27
 Objects communicate with each other by sending messages. When an object receives a

message, it interprets that message and executes one of its procedures. That procedure operates on

the private data of the object, so the internal details of how it functions are hidden from the

program that uses the object. This also means that the internal operation of an object could be

changed without having to make any changes to the rest of the program. Behaviour of this sort

characterizes message passing as call-by-desire, in comparison to the more familiar

call-by-reference or call-by-value techniques used in procedural approaches.

Classes

Groups of objects that have the same kind of data and procedures are called a class. This is

analogous to the notion of structured data found in conventional languages like Pascal and C.

Pascal record and C struct declarations can be used to describe user data types. Objects are called

instances of a class in the same sense as standard Pascal or C variables are instances of a given data

type. The class concept can be viewed as an extension of the record concept to provide a set of

attached procedures.

Classes may also be viewed as templates which describe the organization of a given object

type. This template usually has a list of the instance variables (with their data types) and a list of

the messages that are recognized by the class called the protocol. When an instance is created,

storage is allocated for the variables described by the instance variable list. This new object retains

a link to the class which created it so that it has access to the attached procedures. Messages

passed to an object are directed to the class where the action is performed using the object's data as

input. Some systems provide an additional set of variables which belong to the class in the class

template. Storage and values for these variables is maintained with the class and is not copied out

into each object.

28
Methods

Procedures attached to a class are called methods. These methods operate on the values of instance

variables stored with each object. Given a message, a class searches its protocol for the

corresponding procedure. After locating the method, the class executes the operation using the

object's data as input. Some object-oriented languages distinguish between methods which operate

on instance variables and class variables. Languages that support class variables usually provide a

second protocol for messages sent directly to the class. These methods are called class methods or

metamethods. Object Pascal does not provide class methods, so they will not be discussed in this

context.

Inheritance

Classes inherit both data and procedures from their ancestors. This means that objects can be

customized to suit a given application. Common features can be declared in a general class from

which specific classes are generated. When a specialized object receives a message it first checks

its own protocol for a corresponding method. If no such method is found, the search continues

with the immediate ancestor class. Inheritance continues until the method is located somewhere in

the object's ancestry (or is not found anywhere). An additional feature is usually provided in class

systems to allow classes to conditionally override or redirect inheritance so that objects can use

their own specialized methods or can inherit a similarly-named general procedure.

A Conceptual Model

Relationships between objects, classes, and methods can be shown graphically [76]. Objects have

a name, a link to their class, and instance variable storage as shown in Fig. 12. The object name is

usually associated with a symbol-name (similar to the declaration of a variable in procedural

languages). The class link is usually a pointer (or handle) to the location of the class structure (this

is used internally by the class system). The instance variable storage is where values associated

with this particular object will be stored (this may include references to other objects).

29
 (to class)
Object-Name
Class Link

Instance Variable Storage

(to other objects)

Fig. 12. Graphical Representation of an Object [76].

Classes have a name, a link to their ancestor class, an instance variable template, a message

and method dispatch table, and a set of attached procedures as shown in Fig. 13. The class name

is usually held in a symbol table maintained by the class system (similar to the declaration of a

structure or record in procedural languages). The ancestor link is usually a pointer (or handle) to

the location of a class structure (this is used internally by the class system). The instance variable

template contains descriptive parameters that are used during the creation of objects belonging to

this class. The message and method dispatch table describes the local protocol of this class and

holds references to the attached procedures.

(to ancestor)
Class-Name
Immediate Ancestor Link

Instance Variables Template

for Instances of this class
Message and Method Dispatch table
Method 1 Method 3
Message 1 Message 3
-o
Method 2
Message 2 Message 4
—o Method 4

Fig. 13. Graphical Representation of a Class [76].

Both objects and classes are represented internally as simple record structures. For this

reason, the same message-passing with data and procedural abstraction could be implemented in

conventional procedural languages. However, the tedious details associated with class declaration

30
and management (many additional data structures are maintained internally by the class system)

overwhelms the advantages provided by the resulting simulated object-oriented environment. In

fact, most object-oriented programming environments do not actually pass messages to invoke

methods. Rather, conventional procedures are dynamically bound based on the object whose

operation was invoked [76].

Example

Some of the advantages offered by object-oriented programming can be illustrated by an example

that compares procedural and object-oriented approaches for a simple problem. Consider the

following scenario: a program is needed to compute the area and circumference for circles of

varying radii.

The procedural approach to this problem would likely start by defining functions to compute

the desired information. Using Pascal, the programmer could write code as follows:

function CircleArea ( r a d i u s : E x t e n d e d ) : Extended;

begin
CircleArea := p i * r a d i u s * r a d i u s ;
end;

function CircleCircumference ( r a d i u s : E x t e n d e d ) : Extended;

begin
CircleCircumference := 2 * p i * r a d i u s ;
end;

Given a record from a database for a particular circle, the programmer can compute the area and

circumference by writing:

area : = C i r c l e A r e a ( r e c o r d V a l u e ) ;
c i r c u m f e r e n c e := C i r c l e C i r c u m f e r e n c e ( r e c o r d V a l u e ) ;

The remaining task for the programmer is to obtain radius record-values for each circle in the

database, and to organize some procedure to consistently submit these values to the CircleArea

and C i r c l e C i r c u m f e r e n c e functions.

31
 The object-oriented approach to the same problem starts with a class definition. It is standard

practice in Object Pascal to begin class-names with the letter "T" and instance-variable-names with

the letter "f", so the T C i r c i e class can be described as follows:

TCircle = object
f R a d i u s : Extended;
f u n c t i o n A r e a : Extended;
f u n c t i o n Circumference:
end;
<—Instance variable declaration,
<—function prototype,
Extended; <—function prototype,

The corresponding method declarations appear to be the same as their procedural counterparts;

however, the instance variable f Radius is used in place of the function parameter radius since the

object automatically knows where its data is stored.

function T C i r c l e . A r e a : Extended;
begin
Area := p i * f R a d i u s * fRadius;
end;

function TCircle.Circumference: Extended;

begin
Circumference := 2 * p i * f R a d i u s ;
end;

Given an instance of the T C i r c l e class, the programmer can compute its area and circumference

by invoking its Area and c i r c u m f e r e n c e methods. If the name used to designate this instance is

" a c i r c i e " , the Object Pascal code would be:

area := a C i r c l e . A r e a ;
c i r c u m f e r e n c e := a C i r c l e . C i r c u m f e r e n c e ;

The programmer's task in this case is simply to create object instances based on the records found

in the database (this may be done when reading the data), and to invoke the methods Area and

Circumference for each object.

An important distinction can be made between the procedural approach and the

object-oriented approach — it is the programmer's responsibility to write code that binds data

records to procedures when using the procedural approach, whereas it is the compiler's

responsibility for the same task when using the object-oriented approach. Comparing two lines of

32
code from the two approaches indicates that object-oriented programming simplifies the

programmer's task.

Procedural Approach: the programmer binds data to procedures.

area := C i r c l e A r e a ( r e c o r d V a l u e ) ;

Object-Oriented Approach: the compiler binds instance variables to methods.

area := a C i r c l e . A r e a ;

In addition to the higher degree of reliability implied by having more tasks performed by the

compiler, the object-oriented approach also assures that the knowledge about relationships between

data and procedures remains with the source code rather than with the programmer. This means

that object-oriented programs should be easier to maintain and to modify even in the absence of

their creators.

Using the graphical representation described earlier, a typical instance of the T C i r c i e class

( a c i r c i e ) would appear as shown in Fig. 14. This object has a link to its class ( T C i r c i e ) , and a

value stored in its instance variable field. The T C i r c i e class can also be represented as shown in

Fig. 15. This class has a link to its ancestor (object), an instance variable template (radius), a

message and method dispatch table (protocol includes: r a d i u s , Area, and circumference), and

a set of attached procedures.

i,
y
(to TCircie Class)
aCircle +

fRadius = 10.0

v )

Fig. 14. A Typical Object.

33
 Area = n * radius
Circumference = 2n * radius
(to Object Class)
TCircle

fRadius

O— Area

o— Circumference

Fig. 15. A Typical Class.

2.4.2. Application Frameworks

Object-oriented programming presents software designers with the opportunity to reuse significant

portions of code in their applications. Object-descriptions for user-interface, file-management, and

event-processing can be stored in a class-library to provide a foundation for custom software. This

is known as an "expandable application framework", and is probably singularly responsible for the

current popularity of the object-oriented approach.

Overview

The MacApp expandable applicationframeworkshown in Fig. 16 provides an object library which

simplifies the construction of programs [6]. This framework eliminates the inefficiency of having

to reengineer significant portions of the user-interface for each application. It also has the

beneficial side-effect of providing programs which are more user-friendly, as they are guaranteed

to conform to a consistent user-interface standard.

Software developers start with the blank application (enclosed by the dotted line) of Fig. 16.

Custom subroutines are added to this framework by creating new class descriptions which have

specialized methods to perform the application-specific functions. Most of the user-interface

(drawing, menus, buttons, etc.) comes with the blank application, so developers can concentrate

on the tasks that their application must perform.

34
 Supplied
"Main"
The "Expandable" Routine
Application Framework

Supplied Supplied
Subroutine Subroutine

The portion of the application you write.

The portion of the application supplied to you as the expandable application framework.

Fig. 16. A n Expandable Application Framework [6].

Higher-level application frameworks have been developed to help designers of specific

application types. The Intermedia system, a large object-oriented hypertext/hypermedia system and

associated applications development framework, was designed to provide sophisticated document

linkages [55]. The developers of this system transported MacApp to an Inheritance C environment

on Sun workstations for development and IBM RT PCs for delivery.

Application

A generic application framework called "GenApp" was developed by the author for use with

simple graphical applications. It provides a basic framework for file interface, graphical editing,

alert and dialog boxes, and other standard features supplied by tools like MacApp. These features

are offered by a set of primitive classes for applications, documents, windows, and user-interface

media. GenApp is introduced with the intelligent finite element analysis program presented at the

end of this thesis, and additional details are given in the GenApp manual [29].

35
2.5. Knowledge-Based Expert Systems
Almost all existing applications of A l in engineering belong to a group of elementary products

called knowledge-based expert systems — programs that mimic the decision-making processes of

an expert in a particular domain. This section presents the classical format of an expert system for

general problem-solving in contrast with a novel expert system employed by the engineering

analysis program described later in this thesis.

2.5.1. Classification

A simple classification of artificial intelligence technology is shown in Fig. 17. Artificial

intelligence encompasses all programs that exhibit intelligent behaviour by skillful application of

heuristics. Within this general field, knowledge-based systems (KBS) are all programs that make

domain knowledge explicit and separate from the rest of the system. Almost all existing

applications of A l in engineering fall into the final group, which is a subset of knowledge-based

systems that applies expert knowledge to difficult real world problems (KBES).

Exhibit intelligent
ARTIFICIAL behaviour by skillful
INTELLIGENCE application of heuristics
PROGRAMS

Make domain knowledge

KNOWLEDGE-BASED explicit and separate from
SYSTEMS the rest of the system

Apply expert knowledge

EXPERT to difficult, real world
SYSTEMS problems

Fig. 17. KBES Classification within A l Technology [94].

36
2.5.2. Components

The internal structure of a typical KBES can be idealized as shown in Fig. 18. Three basic

components of a knowledge-based expert system are:

(1) Knowledge base.

(2) Context.
(3) Inference mechanism.

The knowledge base may contain domain-specific axioms and facts (expertise). The context is a

short-term knowledge base which contains information about the current problem. The inference

mechanism is the engine of the KBES, and works with both the context and knowledge base to

provide solutions. Three other components that are not necessarily part of the K B E S , but are

desirable in most cases are:

(4) Knowledge acquisition facility.

(5) Explanation facility.
(6) User-interface.

Fig. 18. K B E S Components [50].

37
The knowledge acquisition facility is a software package that may be used to describe and organize

heuristics used by the expert. The explanation facility is more software used by the expert system

to explain and to justify logical computations performed during inference. The user-interface

mechanism is determined by the machine and environment used to develop the software.

Naturally, real applications may have slight variations from this generic expert system

configuration to take advantage of domain-specific features.

2.5.3. Applications

Engineering analysis is a knowledge-based technology — the most difficult tasks performed in

analysis are those that require manipulation of the domain knowledge. Unlike conventional

engineering software, expert systems are designed to work with a constantly changing knowledge

base. K B E S technology has tremendous potential in the analysis field, as there are many

modelling, solution, and interpretation tasks that are yet to be automated.

The first publicized knowledge-based expert system in the engineering analysis domain was

an automated consultant called S A C O N (Structural Analysis CONsultant) [8], that used the

E M Y C I N [92] shell as its framework. This system advises engineers in the use of a large,

general-purpose structural analysis program called M A R C [54]. The M A R C program offers a

large number of analysis methods, material properties, and geometries that may be used in the

modelling process. SACON's job is to help the analyst select the best options for a given problem

domain. Using a set of production rules, and a backward-chaining depth-first search strategy this

system infers facts which can guide an inexperienced analyst through the analysis process.

However, as mentioned earlier, passive consultation is only a temporary solution to the problems

with conventional analysis.

The next generation of KBES tools in the analysis domain attempted to become active players

in the analysis process. Rather than providing passive consultation, and expecting the analyst to

perform all conventional analysis tasks, these expert systems were intended to be front-ends or

intelligent-interfaces that shield the engineer from the complexity of the analysis program.

38
Although intelligent interfaces can be developed to adequately control existing conventional

analysis software [96], this approach does nothing to improve the current state of poor reliability

experienced with the actual analysis software.

The concept proposed by this thesis is to simplify the complexity of analysis programs using

object-oriented programming techniques and to integrate these tools in a KBES framework using

the same object-oriented philosophy. The hybrid system for engineering analysis developed as

part of this thesis requires a simple expert system to perform backward chaining inference in

conjunction with an event-driven architecture.

An idealization of the actual expert system used in this thesis is shown in Fig. 19. The

knowledge-base, context, and inference engine are similar to those found in a typical KBES;

however, there are no acquisition and user-interface modules. Instead of an explanation facility,

this system takes action with its logical computation directly communicating results to the

event-driven analysis program through an event generator (details are given in chapter 4).

Context

Knowledge
Base

Fig. 19. K B E S used by an Event-Driven Analysis Program [30].

39
2.6. Development Tools
A variety of software is available for creating artificial intelligence applications. The development

tools examined include: conventional A l languages (Lisp, Prolog, Smalltalk), hybrid languages

(Object Pascal, C++) and higher-level approaches (NExpert Object). Emphasis is placed on the

hybrid environment (Object Pascal and C) used later in this thesis for the development of an

intelligent finite element analysis program.

2.6.1. Programming Paradigms

One of the most significant improvements offered by A l research is in the evolution of

programming paradigms. A lineage of data structures and control mechanisms assembled by

Parsaye and Chignell is shown in Fig. 20, and Tables 1 and 2. A natural trend has taken place,

starting with simple data and control management facilities gradually changing towards more

sophisticated tools.

In addition to the introduction of new languages which provide new features, existing

languages have undergone extensive internal surgery over time. The F O R T R A N used by

engineers today bears little resemblance to the equivalent language of the 1950's. Many features

such as dynamic data structures [9] and recursion [56] are part of the engineer's F O R T R A N

toolkit. Object-oriented class systems instigated by Smalltalk [37] are found in extensions to

Pascal (Object Pascal) [88], C (C++) [82], and Lisp (Flavors and LOOPS) [10]. The result of

including common features in multiple programming environments is obvious — competition

assures the use of the best available technology.

Expert systems can be developed using a variety of programming paradigms, but the most

common implementations are rule-based systems. These systems are typically built using a KBES

"shell" which simplifies user-interface and prototype development. Problem-solving is done using

forward-chaining, backward-chaining, or mixed theorem-proving strategies. Sophisticated

paradigms recognize the need to model tasks and reasoning rather than to solve problems

exclusively by theorem-proving.

40
 Frame-based systems are often mistakenly considered as alternatives to rule-based systems.

Frames merely provide structuring and inheritance capabilities to the simple rule-based logic

programming paradigm. Object-oriented programming allows simplified development of

knowledge frameworks [33], and permits the integration of K B E S technology in existing

software. Specific object-oriented techniques used in this thesis will be introduced later.

Mid 1950s

Late 1950s

Early 1960s

Early 1970s

Mid 1970s

Late 1970s

Data Structures Control Paradigms

Fig. 20. The Evolution of Programming Paradigms [62].

41
T a b l e 1. Control Paradigms [62].

GoTo/Jump. This was the first control paradigm used in assembly language programming, and it
still exists in a number of languages.
For-Loop/Do-While. This was the next step away from GoTos and was first used in FORTRAN

and other Algol-like languages.

Recursion. This method of repeating a program segment was first used in Algol, C, Lisp, etc. A
recursive definition may call itself.
Backtrack/Fail. This style was first used in Prolog. Statements are repeated with new variable
values, once computation fails to progress successfully.
Do Whenever. This style of computing was advanced by forward-chaining rule-based languages such
as OPS 5. There is no explicit flow of control and the program consists of a number of if-then
rules that are executed according to a conflict-resolution strategy.

T a b l e 2. Data Structures [62].

Arrays. These are commonly used in assembly language, FORTRAN, and similar languages.
Records/Fields. These are used in Pascal, C, Ada, etc. Records are used to group information.
Dynamic Data Structures. These are used in symbolic languages such as Lisp and Prolog, which
provide a convenient way of dealing with an undetermined number of items of different types.
Built-in databases. Prolog's built-in database and OPS5's working memory are examples of such
structures. They provide the ability to store information in abstract form, as though it had been
placed in a relational database.
Frames. Frames (and objects) were first implemented in FRL, Smalltalk, and a number of other
recent languages. Frames extend record structures by providing means of inheriting information
between records and allowing active data elements.

42
2.6.2. Conventional Al Languages

Lisp, Prolog, and Smalltalk are often referred to as the languages of A l research. Lisp is the oldest

of these three languages, and is also the most successful in the field of artificial intelligence. Lisp's

success is probably due to its flexibility — a Lisp user can customize the language to suit oneself,

and can deal very easily with a variety of List Processing applications [101]. The biggest

disadvantage of Lisp is that most computer programmers consider it to be an "unusual" language.

Prolog is a language designed for Programming in Logic. It can deal most efficiently with

problems that may be expressed using the predicate calculus described earlier. In fact, Prolog can

be thought of as a language interpreter that is programmed with axioms [17].

Smalltalk is a more recent product of A l research than Lisp or Prolog, and is focussed on a

different audience of programmers. In Smalltalk, everything is an object. This uniformity creates

both the simplicity and power of the language [37]. Object-oriented concepts which were

formalized in the design of Smalltalk have been transported to many other programming languages,

so although Smalltalk may not be a particularly useful development tool by itself, it does help to

explain the object-oriented extensions in other languages [13].

2.6.3. Hybrid Languages

Providing support for object-oriented programming can be accomplished in two manners:

designing a totally new programming language around the basic concepts (the pure object-oriented

approach) or grafting these concepts onto an existing language (the hybrid approach) [76].

Smalltalk is an example of a pure object-oriented language. Object Pascal [88] and C++ [82] are

examples of hybrid languages. The hybrid approach is particularly useful for engineering

applications, as most programmers of engineering applications are not familiar with Lisp and other

Al languages and would prefer to work within their conventional computing environments. This

was the case in the development of an intelligent finite element analysis program — Object Pascal

offered the best available medium for integrating existing analysis procedures written in C.

43
2.6.4. Higher-Level Approaches

High-level programming tools can provide A l technology directly to conventional languages.

NExpert Object [58] is an example of this kind of tool. It provides: integrated forward and

backward chaining, automatic goal generation, multiple inheritance, pattern matching, direct calls

to external routines, etc. The NExpert concept is simple — provide a KBES tool which can call

and be called by conventional C programs. The resulting open architecture shown in Fig. 21

provides an impressive list of capabilities that are available and functioning on many computer

systems.

external
devices/computers Networking
multi-processes Ethernet, DecNet...
real-time data input
into NEXPERT event-driven
architecture Inter-process Communication
Vax Calling Conventions
Dynamic Data Exchange

Multi-tasking

Execute I
n
t
e
r
DataBases NEXPERT f
DB ffl, Lotus 123 a
ORACLE, SQL, Retrieve c
RDB, Excel... Show e

J
explanations
graphics
text
Data storage
Read/Write
Graphics focus of attention
Text conclusions
reasoning trace
active values
Dynamic access reports
to knowledge bases Knowledge what if
Load/Unload
Bases

Fig. 21. The NExpert Object Open A l Environment [58].

44
2.7. Applications of A l Techniques in Engineering Analysis
Many techniques from the field of artificial intelligence can potentially be used to improve the

reliability and efficiency of engineering analysis software; however, only a select few will ever find

practical application in this domain. Some tools are not available to the general public, others are

not fully functional, and the majority exist solely on the drawing boards of imaginative developers.

Selection of techniques and development environments for use in this thesis was influenced by the

kinds of tools available at the time research was undertaken. This section describes the selections

that were made, the motivations that influenced these selections, and the problems that had to be

overcome in order to provide the final product.

2.7.1. Object-Oriented Programming

Preliminary research done for the Object N A P project [32] indicates that object-oriented

programming offers significant improvements in program size, development time, and software

reusability. At the same time, it may require longer to perform numerical tasks. A combination of

conventional (C) programs for numerical tasks with object-oriented (Object Pascal) programs to

integrate and to organize the analysis results appears to offer the best overall product. The

Lightspeed C and Pascal compilers [87,88], which provide integrated environments for program

development, were selected for use in this research project. Selection of C and Object Pascal (as

opposed to Lisp, Prolog, F O R T R A N , or others) was based on strength/weakness of the

languages, flexibility of the development environments, and availability of the tools.

2.7.2. Generic Application Frameworks

Developers of object-oriented programs have the option to start program construction at a very high

level by adopting a generic application framework. The most popular system on personal

computers is called MacApp [6], and can be accessed using a variety of languages including M P W

Pascal, M P W C , and Assembler. Unfortunately, MacApp is provided as a "black box" library and

its use in non-MPW environments is not yet well-supported. Since the Lightspeed Pascal compiler

45
[88] provides an integrated environment for program development, it was quite easy to develop a

generic framework called GenApp that suited the SNAP project's needs. GenApp supports many

of the same features as MacApp, including a similar user-interface library and main event-loop

(details are given in chapter 4 and in the GenApp manual [29]).

2.7.3. Event-Driven Architectures

Event-driven architectures have been used extensively in modern word-processing, spreadsheet,

and graphics applications. The basic concept behind this approach is that actions taken by the user

(or by other applications) result in events. Applications can create and respond to these events as a

programming paradigm — their operation is based on the continual extraction of events from an

event queue, followed by execution of an associated action.

GenApp uses this kind of paradigm to provide a consistent standard user-interface with

menus, windows, and drawing tools found in many professional software packages. SNAP is

constructed on top of the basic GenApp shell by providing customized event-handling methods in

its class structure. The most significant flaw in the event-driven approach is that context-dependent

conditional relationships must be embedded within the event-handling process (details are given in

chapter 4). The solution to this problem was obtained by providing an expert system that operates

within the analysis process to direct event-generation when potential problems arise.

2.7.4. Knowledge-Based Expert Systems

Traditional KBES technology has been used in many engineering analysis applications; however,

the form usually adopted by such systems is as a consultant or interface to the actual analysis

software, rather than as an integrated component of the analysis process. The expert system used

in the SNAP project, as described in the preceding section, had to be designed for operation in

conjunction with the object-oriented, event-driven environment of GenApp. The completed KBES

performs forward and backward chaining with backtracking to provide logical computations that

directly affect the operation of the analysis program.

46
3. Engineering Analysis

The reliability and efficiency of methods for engineering analysis can be improved by

blending artificial intelligence into conventional application software to form a "hybrid"

system. This chapter describes such a system, including: the kinds of knowledge used

in the analysis process, the programs that control this knowledge, and the resources

that perform the numerical computation.

3.1. Knowledge

Engineering analysis may be defined as the examination of a physical structure to reveal specified

facets of physical behaviour. In most cases, analysts want to predict behaviour so that they can'

provide a safe and efficient design for a proposed structure. This requires some knowledge of

modelling, solution, and interpretation activities. The scenario shown in Fig. 2 2 is used to

illustrate the kinds of knowledge used in the analysis process.

Physical Physical
Structure Behaviour

F i g . 2 2 . Engineering Analysis Scenario—Analysts convert complex information relating to the

physical structure shown on the left (geometry, materials, boundary conditions, etc.) to
unknown but desired facts about the physical behaviour shown on the right
(displacements, stresses, etc.). This conversion is done by the modelling, solution,
and interpretation activities discussed in subsequent sections.

47
3.1.1. Modelling

Representation of key physical characteristics in a simplified context is called "modelling". This

activity takes place on physical, analytical, and numerical abstraction levels. The physical

abstraction level refers to the actual structure and the complex description of reality. A simplified

idealization of the problem in terms of precise analytical descriptions is located on a lower

abstraction level. Further simplification using numerical techniques to approximate the analytical

model is carried out on the lowest abstraction level. Idealizations used in the modelling process are

shown in Fig. 23.

Physical Analytical Numerical

Structure Model Model

F i g . 23. Modelling—A precise and unambiguous statement of the physical problem (shown on
the left) that captures the essential aspects of behaviour is the analytical model (shown
in the middle) [90]. Further simplification so that solution can be carried out using
numerical techniques yields the numerical model (shown on the right).

Starting from the physical level, the analyst must extract all pertinent spatial properties to

form an analytical model which approximates the real problem. Spatial descriptions usually

include geometry and topology that corresponds with the information used by solids modelling

programs. In addition to spatial descriptions, engineers like to attach functional descriptions to the

analytical model. Functional descriptions often characterize structural load-carrying mechanisms

(eg. Calling something a "beam" implies the expected analysis and result types). Such functional

descriptions are needed for pragmatic reasons only, because spatial knowledge is theoretically

sufficient for analysis purposes [90]; however, functional aspects of analytical modelling hold the

key to much of the knowledge used by analysts. Since engineers use descriptions such as "beam",

"plate", and "shell" in all aspects of their work — from formulation of theories to practical design

48
operations — it is likely that they also associate their heuristic knowledge (expertise) with these

descriptions. In this light, heuristics provide an essential aspect of the modelling process for the

selection of appropriate model characteristics (The model depends on the problems to be

investigated: strength, stability, fatigue, etc.).

Although analytical solution is possible for simple problems, most cases require numerical

solutions. Creation of a numerical model draws from another area of the analyst's knowledge.

Input to finite element analysis programs typically consists of a mesh and a set of control

parameters. The mesh specifies basic information about the problem (nodes, elements, materials,

and boundary conditions), whereas the control parameters tell the analysis program how to solve

the problem. In order to construct a finite element mesh, the analyst must be familiar with element

geometry and connectivity as well as material and boundary condition specifications. In addition to

a simple understanding of the mesh configuration, the analyst is responsible for the selection of

modelling options that coincide with the intended usage (eg. Elements should be chosen based on

their suitability for a given problem).

3.1.2. Solution

Perhaps the most straightforward part of analysis is the "solution" activity. Solution can be

visualized as an operation performed to expose new information on a single abstraction level. On

the physical level, nature performs its own form of solution to reveal physical behaviour. On the

analytical level, solution involves the symbolic manipulation of mathematical formulae to produce

analytical response (The word "response" is used rather than "behaviour", as the new information

pertains to only the specific problems addressed by the model). Finally, on the numerical level,

computation using approximation techniques leads to the numerical response. Idealizations used in

the solution process are shown in Figs. 22, 24, and 25.

Analytical solutions are usually not possible for complicated problems, as the number of

equations and the mathematical complexity increases dramatically for odd-shaped domains or

non-uniform boundary conditions. Although it may not be possible to obtain the exact analytical

49
response, solutions may be available for a simplified problem having essentially the same

characteristic response. Classical engineering solutions require the analyst to have extensive

theoretical and practical knowledge. Automation of this knowledge is probably most efficiently

done by representing it with heuristics.

Analytical Analytical
Model Response

F i g . 24. Analytical Solution —In some cases, problems may be solved by the symbolic
manipulation of mathematical formulae associated with an analytical model (shown on
the left) to produce analytical response (shown on the right).

Numerical solutions are used for most modern engineering analyses. Although solving

systems of equations defined by the numerical model may be computationally expensive, it is also

easily automated. The finite element method illustrates a typical example of how to simplify a

problem by dividing it into many smaller problems that can be solved using generic methods. The

task of the finite element program designer is to devise efficient and practical solutions for each of

these small problems and to provide appropriate means for assembling the complete solution.

Numerical Numerical
Model Response

F i g . 25. Numerical Solution —In most cases, problems are solved by numerical analysis
programs that compute numerical response (displacements, stresses, etc.) using a
numerical model (nodes, elements, stiffness matrices, etc.).

50
 Most activities in finite element analysis programs are automated using algorithms. This

indicates that the knowledge related to these activities is quite well-defined, and that the details of

their operation may often be hidden from the analyst's view. However, the analyst is usually still

responsible for the selection of control parameters that guide the analysis program to the

appropriate algorithms. Automation of this knowledge is probably most efficiently done by

representing it with heuristics.

3.1.3. Interpretation

Translation of computed response into meaningful information is known as "interpretation". This

activity takes place on numerical, analytical, and physical abstraction levels. The numerical

abstraction level refers to the numbers output by an analysis program. Precise descriptions of the

predicted analytical response and an evaluation of the numerical response in analytical terms are

located on the analytical abstraction level. Further generalization of the predicted structural

behaviour is found on the physical abstraction level. Idealizations used in the interpretation

process are shown in Fig. 26.

Numerical Analytical Physical

Response Response Behaviour

F i g . 26. Interpretation — Given discrete values at the numerical level (displacements, stresses,
etc.), there is a need to interpret the meaningfirstat the analytical level to confirm that
the numerical solution is correct, and second to confirm that the analytical response is
consistent with observed or desired physical behaviour.

Numerical response can be expressed in analytical terms by examining the correlation

between the actual results and the results predicted by various analytical models. At this stage, the

validity of a solution can be tested (eg. Analyses that assume small displacements are only valid if

51
their results indicate small displacements). In order to perform this kind of testing, the analyst

must understand the foundations of numerical and analytical approximations. Usually, finite

element analysis programs have documentation that outlines the theory and implementation of their

operation to simplify the process of mapping solutions from the numerical domain to meaningful

analytical abstractions. Some programs even try to convert results into functional descriptions that

are easier for the analyst to understand (eg. Results can be expressed in terms of load-carrying

mechanisms). Since most theories are clearly described at the numerical abstraction level, it is not

too complicated to develop algorithms for their implementation.

In many cases, the analyst is forced to investigate the foundations of a numerical solution to

assure proper application of the results in "post-processing" software. Although usually intended

to simplify analysis results, post-processing software actually requires additional heuristic

knowledge of the analyst. This additional effort is certainly beneficial, as it elevates the solution

response to a higher level of abstraction and simplifies the task of analytical interpretation.

Analytical response is assumed to reflect actual physical behaviour, yet only to the accuracy

of the original model. Physical behaviour must be predicted using analysis results, so analysts

must understand the principles behind the model, its solution, and the factors that determine its

validity. Analysts use "judgment" and "rules-of-thumb" that have been developed by years of

experience and by comparison with similar problem types to perform the interpretation activity.

Since analysts presently rely on such heuristics, a similar representation seems most practical for

use in the automation of this knowledge.

In summary, the knowledge found in each of the modelling, solution, and interpretation

activities has some structured aspects that can be represented using algorithms and other

less-structured aspects that are more easily represented using heuristics. Controllers and resources

described in subsequent sections must be able to deal with both kinds of knowledge.

52
3.2. Controllers

Classical engineering analysis methods use a "divide-and-conquer" strategy — any problem may

be divided into several sub-problems. This approach is used in the development of a hybrid

system for engineering analysis to assemble a hierarchy of intelligent components into a knowledge

framework. This hierarchy deals with complex issues at its top and simple issues at its bottom.

Eventually, the low-level problems have simple solutions provided by conventional application

software. The complete solution is obtained by combining the results of all sub-problems into a

form which has meaning at higher levels of abstraction. Hybrid systems can be constructed using

two basic components: controllers (the managers of the knowledge hierarchy) and intelligent

resources (the conventional software used for low-level problems). This section deals with a

typical controller as shown in Fig. 27.

t
A Typical
Controller J
11 j
- 1 — ^ r ^ ^ f f ^ /

66
... mI I .
u r >_
\1 1 \r 'II' i f 1
- - -
( \( \( \ C \ C \ C \ ( \\ \'( i c
^ i C J K J V J K. J { ) V. J J \.

i2 Controllers
Intelligent Resources

Fig. 27. A Typical Controller.

53
3.2.1. Controller Interface

The primary occupation of a controller is with the management of subordinate controllers and

intelligent resources, so the interface with these components is an important part of the controller

design. Knowledge-based interfaces could be used to provide communication between

components in a knowledge hierarchy. A system called K A D B A S E has been developed b y Rehak

and Howard [69] for interfacing expert systems with design databases in integrated C A D systems.

Such an approach permits the integration of a heterogeneous cross-section of expert systems and

conventional application software. Rather than trying to use a diverse mixture of software, as

would be possible with systems like K A D B A S E , this thesis concentrates on the use of simple

controller/resource communication.

Controllers and resources can be developed within an object-oriented environment. In this

case, communication between these components is handled by the message facilities of the

development tool (Object Pascal). Controllers can use event-driven, goal-driven, or mixed

operations to process knowledge. Descriptions for a generic T C o n t r o l l e r class could take many

forms; however, the simple class shown in Fig. 28 uses the event-driven approach. Interface to

instances of this class is provided by the Task method. A higher-level controller can send this

message to any of its subordinates at any time to let them perform tasks that have accumulated in an

event queue. Once a controller is activated, it takes events that belong to it from the queue using

GetNextEvent and submits any associated sub-events to other controllers using PostEvent.

(to TObject Class)

TController -f
w
fEvtMask fQueue

IController
o- Task DoEvent —o
o— GetNextEvent PostEvent —o
Fig. 28. TController Class Description.

54
3.2.2. Event-Driven Operation

The architecture of a typical controller used in this thesis follows the event-driven operation shown

in Fig. 29. When a message is received by this kind of controller an event is created. Entering the

algorithm with this event leads to one of three options:

(1) Process the event.

(2) Generate and post a set of sub-events.

(3) Dispatch the event to an intelligent resource.

The event loop is repeated until no events are found (events not handled by this controller are not

included). Events may be processed direcdy by the controller (a simple calculation) or indirectly

by one of its resources. Sub-events are treated in the same manner as the original event, so they

may also be dispatched to other controllers. This paradigm is analogous with forward-chaining

inference — execution continues until all means of inference are exhausted.

Fig. 29. Event-Driven Operation.

55
 Event-driven controllers can be used to create friendly interfaces that allow the user to work

without the constraint of a hierarchically structured set of commands. The generic application

framework (GenApp), developed by the author as a shell for graphical applications, provides

user-interface for graphical editing within its windows using this event-driven paradigm.

In several cases, it may be advantageous to have a goal-driven controller (eg. Applications of

heuristical knowledge). Goal-driven inference described later for the operation of a typical

intelligent resource may also be applied to controllers.

3.2.3. Example

The operation of the modelling controller shown in Fig. 30 can be illustrated using an analogy.

Consider this controller to be the shipping officer in a transportation company that moves

knowledge between the locations of the physical structure, the analytical model, and the numerical

model. The responsibilities of the shipping officer are focused on the preparation of shipping

orders, coordination of product movement, and quality assurance. Decisions must be made (often

heuristically) regarding the proper mode and route of transport, and when a mistake has occurred

the appropriate action must be taken.

Physical Analytical Numerical

Structure Model Model

Fig. 30. Modelling Controller.

56
 If the controller in this example uses an event-driven approach then messages received from

its resources (the delivery vehicles) result in events. For example, when one vehicle reports that it

has broken down then another vehicle will be dispatched in its place, or when a delivery has been

completed that vehicle becomes available for subsequent operations.

Some events that take place in the engineering analysis modelling task include: Create, and

Move. User actions that create components of the structural model (solids, boundaries, loads, etc.)

post C r e a t e events to the modelling controller to tell it that something has been added to the

model. This controller retrieves the event from a queue, interprets the meaning of the message,

and tries to perform the requested action. Creation of a solid part, may post many subsequent

events to other controllers (finite element mesh must be generated, stiffness computed, etc.).

Addition of boundary parts and loads also results in subsequent event generation (load vector

computation, constraining solids, etc.).

Other events that take place in the engineering analysis modelling task include: R e f i n e ,

ReduceDOF and AssignDOF. These events are not direcdy user-related, rather they are subsequent

or secondary events that are conditionally caused by events such as C r e a t e and Move. These

events are difficult to relate to user actions without examining the current problem context;

however, some constraints or rules can usually describe their application. For example, the

ReduceDOF event should be generated after C r e a t e events if the object was a solid and it was

created next to a boundary (see the example at the end of this thesis for a detailed description of the

user-interface). Also, the ReduceDOF event should be generated after Create events if the object

was a boundary and it was created next to a solid. It is apparent that many combinations can exist

for each kind of event, resulting in a tree of possible outcomes for any given model. For this

reason, the event-driven approach works nicely as long as all actions can be directly related to

events by a causal relationship (i.e. events must always take place given the action, and not be

dependent on additional conditions). Actions that result in multiple or conditional events are best

processed using alternative inference schemes such as goal-driven event-generation (explained later

in this thesis).

57
3.3. Intelligent Resources
Numerical computations found in engineering analysis are usually represented using structured

algorithms. Controllers may perform some small calculations as part of management activities, but

the majority of structured computation is left to the workhorse "resources" at lower levels in the

knowledge hierarchy. Conventional analysis programs divide algorithms into modules that can

take advantage of existing software for general-purpose or highly specialized tasks. The hybrid

system described in this thesis uses intelligent interfaces to access conventional analysis software.

This section deals with a typical intelligent resource as shown in Fig. 31.

A Typical
Intelligent
f
Resource

55e
5
Controllers
^••j Intelligent Resources

Fig. 31. A Typical Intelligent Resource.

58
3.3.1. Resource Interface

Resources can be designed to provide information of any kind. The TResource class description

shown in Fig. 32 is an example of a simple resource with one basic method (DoCommand) to

control its operation. Controllers may dispatch events or goals to this resource simply by creating

command objects that this resource understands, and then submitting them to the DoCommand

method. This approach makes the resource independent of its controllers (commands may be

created by menus, other resources, or even inference operations at higher levels).

(to TObject Class)

TResource +
#

o- DoCommand

Fig. 32. TResource Class Description.

3.3.2. Goal-Driven Operation

Intelligent resources used in this thesis have either goal-driven or event-driven architectures.

Description of a typical controller operating under event-driven inference given earlier may also be

applied to resources, so the operation of a goal-driven resource is explained in this context.

A typical goal-driven operation is shown in Fig. 33. When a message is received by this

kind of resource a goal is created. This goal may be proven (TRUE or F A L S E ) using a

backward-chaining algorithm that follows these basic steps [62]:

(1) Resolve Built-in Clauses: If the goal is a built-in clause, it is evaluated using the associated

predicate. Built-in clauses include features such as input-output predicates.

(2) Match with Facts: If the goal is found in the context return T R U E . If the goal is something

that the user should answer, then a prompt is given for input.

(3) Match with Rules: Try to match the goal with the conclusion of a rule. If no matching rule is

found, return F A L S E .

59
(4) Prove the Rule Premise: Try to prove each clause in the premise of a rule. If all clauses

succeed, return T R U E .

(5) Backtrack within a Premise: If a clause fails in a rule premise, go back to the previous clause

(i.e. backtrack) and try to find new bindings for the variables.

(6) If Necessary, Try Another Rule: If the rule under consideration is of no use in proving the

goal, then try the next rule with a conclusion that matches the goal.

Goal-driven resources are best suited to deal with heuristical knowledge. Conversely,

event-driven resources are best suited to deal with well-defined algorithms. Aspects of the analysis

process such as analytical solution can be automated using goal-driven resources. Many problems

in numerical analysis are easily represented using algorithms (most of the resources used in this

thesis are event-driven).

F i g . 33. Goal-Driven Operation [62].

60
3.3.3. Example

The operation of the solution controller and its resources (Matrix Library, Shape Functions,

Numerical Integration, Finite Elements, etc.) shown in Fig. 34 can be illustrated by extending the

analogy used earlier for controllers. Consider this controller to be the shipping officer in a

transportation company that moves knowledge between the locations of the numerical model and

the numerical response. While the shipping officer deals with the preparation of shipping orders,

coordination of product movement, and quality assurance, resources are the workers that carry out

these tasks. After receiving their orders, each resource becomes responsible for collecting and

moving some information along the solution route using their own delivery vehicles. Along the

way, resources may be required to make some decisions on their own or with the help of their

controller.

V /
Matrix Library

E^g

Numerical Numerical
Model Response

F i g . 34. Solution Controller Resources.

61
 If the resource in this example uses a goal-driven approach, then messages received from its

controller (the shipping officer) result in logical computation to obtain that goal. For example,

when one vehicle is dispatched to a location for a delivery, the driver of the vehicle may be

responsible for determining the route. In the case that the shipment was not waiting for pickup

when the vehicle arrived, the driver may have to request new orders from the central shipping

office before proceeding with his work.

In order to make decisions of this kind, resources must have a decision-handling system.

Algorithms can be used for this purpose — if a resource is asked for something, then it can check a

few facts according to a predetermined plan before responding. This works for simple cases, but it

breaks down as soon as insufficient information is available or when the problem does not fit

within the bounds of the algorithm. Experts make their decisions based on a combination of

algorithmic and heuristic approaches. A KBES can be used to duplicate the expert's approach and

to provide a flexible and adaptive interface to a resource.

Intelligent interfaces to resources can be constructed using a variety of strategies [61]. A

common approach is to provide a command-oriented intermediate program that translates requests

from one program into something the second program understands. There are many examples in

recent literature of coupled or hybrid knowledge-based expert systems that have been used to

control sophisticated engineering application software [2,3,4,34,38,43,64,66,83,96].

The low-level resources used in the finite element analysis program SNAP would all be

classified as simple or non-intelligent since the KBES that controls SNAP'S resources is located at

the controller level (see chapter 4). Since controllers can themselves be considered as resources,

SNAP has three intelligent resources (the modelling, solution, and interpretation controllers) each

with their own set of rules and an inference engine that shares a common problem context for the

analysis problem.

62
4. Intelligent Finite Element Analysis

The quality of solutions provided by a finite element analysis program can be related to

its development and application environments — a program that is easy to develop and

to use has a greater likelihood of providing reliable solutions. Unfortunately,

developers of conventional analysis software are often faced with extremely complex

data and control structures, so the resulting programs force the end-user to work within

the bounds of strict and unforgiving algorithms. Artificial intelligence techniques can

simplify the development task and can produce software that is more useful than would

be possible with the conventional approach. This chapter describes the development of

a finite element analysis program called "SNAP" [30]. A step-by-step discussion is

given for the design, implementation, and operation of the SNAP software to provide a

clear understanding of the principles involved.

4.1. Design
The SNAP software is a product of three designs: a conventional analysis program called "NAP"

[24], an object-oriented version called "Object NAP" [25], and some new concepts pertaining to

artificial intelligence. A previous research paper has demonstrated that Object N A P is clearly

superior in comparison to N A P in terms of development time, program size, and reusability of

source code [32]. In addition to adopting the object-oriented approach, SNAP employs an

event-driven architecture aided by an internal expert system that uses goal-driven event generation

to obtain interactive analysis solutions.

63
4.1.1. Objectives

The primary goal of the SNAP project is to demonstrate the advantages/disadvantages offered to

software developers and users by A l techniques such as: object-oriented programming, generic

application frameworks, event-driven architectures, and knowledge-based expert systems that

perform goal-driven event-generation. Some functional characteristics desired of SNAP include:

(1) Modelling: Analytical model construction is performed using a graphically oriented

flexible user-interface. Shapes drawn on the computer screen are

converted into solids or boundary conditions. Numerical modelling is

performed automatically in response to user input to produce optimal mesh

configurations and node numbering.

(2) Solution: Linear elastic analysis of two-dimensional structures is to be performed

using a variety of finite elements including the serendipity isoparametric

rectangles and triangles. The internal operation of analysis procedures is

customized to suit the given problem.

(3) Interpretation: Errors in the numerical solution are heuristically estimated and the results

are incrementally optimized. The finite element mesh is automatically

refined when needed until an acceptable solution is achieved.

These objectives are certainly bold for an academic project, as similar programs developed using

conventional techniques could take a team of software developers years to complete. However,

completion of such a program amplifies the claims of this thesis that artificial intelligence

techniques can offer significant improvements to simplify the development task and to produce

software that is more useful than would be possible using the conventional approach.

64
 The key to designing a user-friendly application program is to provide responsiveness,

permissiveness, and consistency in the user interface [5]. Responsiveness means that the user can

spontaneously and intuitively perform actions to produce desired results. Permissiveness means

that the user is allowed to do anything reasonable. Consistency means that applications should

build on skills that the user already has rather than forcing the user to learn a new interface.

User-interface for SNAP (Macintosh Version) is provided by the simple graphical editor

shown in Fig. 35. Standard menus (#, F i l e , E d i t , and W i n d o w s ) provide all conventional

operations for opening, closing, saving, and editing data files. Additional menu commands are

self-descriptive features that allow the user to customize the program to suit the problem. The

graphics palette (displayed in the left side of a drawing window) contains tools for: pointing and

selecting, drawing solids, attaching loads and constraints, and for typing text. With these tools,

the user can create arbitrarily shaped objects with multiple loads and boundary conditions. SNAP

takes care of the rest of the modelling, solution, and interpretation tasks.

dfc File Edit Options Model Response Windows

Fig. 35. SNAP User-Interface.

65
 User-interface, from the perspective of the computer, can be idealized as shown in Fig. 36.

Once SNAP receives an analytical description of the problem (the user provides a graphical

representation), it can create a numerical model, solve for the numerical response, and interpret the

results. Computation performed by SNAP at the numerical level is hidden — the user gives and

receives analytical descriptions.

Initial finite element meshes normally have to be refined to obtain accurate results. Analysts

using conventional programs are required to estimate error associated with the numerical solution

and to revise the mesh if necessary. Automatic error analysis and mesh refinement (based on

inter-element stress discrepancies) are provided in SNAP so that the user is not required to

understand the details of the numerical analysis.

Although algorithms are available for most of the modelling, solution, and interpretation

activities, initial guesses and expert judgment are often required at key locations in these

algorithms. Analysts develop expertise related to these "fuzzy" areas by repeated use of the

numerical analysis programs. Heuristics can represent some expert knowledge so that it may be

used by automated processes such as those found in SNAP (eg. Solution control can use a rule

such as: if {HaveStiffnessMatrix & HaveLoadVector} then HaveDisplacements and do CalcDisplacements).

Analytical

I
Numerical

Solution
Fig. 36. SNAP Abstraction Levels.

66
4.1.2. Methodology

Artificial intelligence techniques described earlier in this thesis can be used to simplify the

development of the SNAP finite element analysis program. Techniques originating in artificial

intelligence applications that are used in SNAP include:

(1) Object-oriented programming.

(2) Generic application frameworks.
(3) Event-driven architecture.

(4) Knowledge-based expert systems for goal-driven event-generation.

Object-Oriented Programming

The object-oriented approach simplifies development by encapsulating combinations of data and

procedures in prepackaged components. Since programmers find it easier to write object-oriented

applications, more time can be devoted to the improvement of program quality rather than simply

producing a working program. The resulting additional clarity and organization is apparent in both

program development and end-user environments.

Many object-oriented programming environments could have been used in the development

of SNAP (Smalltalk, LOOPS, Object Lisp, Object Pascal, C++, etc.); however, since most

analysis programs are written using procedural languages like F O R T R A N , Pascal, and C it seems

logical to use a hybrid language (object-oriented concepts grafted onto an existing language) such

as Object Pascal or C++. The hybrid environment of Lightspeed Pascal [88] was chosen as it

offered the best combination of development environment and language features. Programs which

involve a lot of computation should use languages that take advantage of hardware developed for

this purpose. Pascal lags behind C in this area. A set of high-speed matrix routines were written

using the LightspeedC compiler [87], and were stored in a library used by SNAP and its

predecessors (NAP and Object NAP).

67
Generic Application Frameworks

The proposed hybrid solution for engineering analysis, as described in preceding chapters, is used

to design the overall structure of the SNAP software. Control is provided by a hierarchy like that

shown in Fig. 37. The main controller is responsible for the management of three subordinate

controllers for modelling, solution, and interpretation. Each of those controllers are responsible

for dealing with resources that create, analyse, and display different kinds of data. Some of the

resources are generic math libraries whereas others are highly specialized tools for finite element

analysis. In addition to resources for analysis, there are several components that provide the

graphical interface to SNAP and to the GenApp generic application framework.

Controllers and resources are easily developed using the object-oriented approach — they are

just instances of the TControiier and TResource classes given in the previous chapter.

Communication throughout the hybrid system is provided by the simple object message facilities of

Object Pascal.

f
I1

F i g . 37. SNAP Control Structure.

68
Event-Driven Architecture

SNAP has an event-driven architecture like that shown in Fig. 38. One main event loop is used to

monitor the graphical interface and all generic operations (GenApp). Additional event loops are

needed to monitor each of the modelling, solution, and interpretation processes. Events are

generated for the main event loop when the user clicks the mouse button or types some text.

Events are also created when anything happens in the analysis process (model changed, solution

calculated, error estimated, etc.). Events related to the main event loop are held in a global queue

that is managed by the system; however, analysis-related events are stored in a location that may be

accessed by the modelling, solution, and interpretation controllers.

GenApp
Event Loop

r Modelling
Event Loop
T Solution
Event Loop
f Interpretation
C~~) Event Loop

~3
9
v
— ]

Fig. 38. SNAP Event Management.

69
Knowledge-Based Expert Systems for Goal-Driven Event-Generation

Event-driven architectures perform well if there is a direct relationship between user-actions and

program response (eg. when the user types a character in a word-processor, that character is

entered in the document at the current insertion point). However, if user-actions are

context-dependent then conditional relationships must be embedded into a purely event-driven

architecture (eg. upon completion of the global stiffness matrix, an event can be generated for

displacement computation, but only if the load vector is also completed). Many combinations can

result within the event-handling process, leading to the same confusion as found in conventional

algorithm-based software.

A novel approach developed as part of this thesis involves the use of selective goal-driven

inference at key locations within the primary event-driven structure. The idea is to generate events

based on the current problem to replace the context-dependent conditional relationships. Instead of

specifying a rigid dependence or sequence of events, a knowledge-based expert system can use a

set of simple rules to decide at any time what actions must take place in order to obtain a solution.

The displacement computation problem, viewed from the K B E S perspective may be

explained using a single rule:

HaveStifmessMatrix HaveDisplacements then ...

if... HaveLoadVector
CalcDisplacements and do

When asked for displacements, SNAP'S expert system can examine this rule and decide that it

needs both the stiffness matrix and the load vector. Backward chaining inference can evaluate

these conditions, and if proven T R U E , the rule will be executed. Rule execution posts an event to

the solution controller and causes the C a i c D i s p i a c e m e n t s action to be performed.

Logical computation to discover facts and to carry out actions is a common paradigm for

deductive and evocative inference. The actual implementation of such a paradigm by goal-driven

event-generation within an event-driven architecture is a new and useful product of this thesis.

70
4.2. I m p l e m e n t a t i o n

The SNAP software is presented using the object-oriented conceptual model described earlier.

Subsequent sections deal with basic class descriptions and class hierarchies for the major

components of SNAP. These descriptions include:

(1) Graphical interface — GenApp environment.

(2) External Procedures — integration of existing analysis software.

(3) Object Lists — management of data.

(4) Analytical Modelling and Interpretation — tools for creating functional descriptions.

(5) Numerical Modelling, Solution, and Interpretation — nodes, elements, forces, etc.

(6) Program Control — SNAP'S event-driven architecture and goal-driven event-generation.

4.2.1. Graphical Interface

The GenApp environment is a generic application framework written by the author for the

development of simple graphics applications such as the interface to SNAP. This environment

provides a set of primitive classes (windows, dialogs, menus, alerts, controls, etc.) that allow the

programmer to assemble complete programs at a high level.

Windows

Modern engineering applications typically provide user interface with windows similar to that

shown in Fig. 39. Some of the basic features of a drawing window include:

• Close Box — This control closes the window and deallocates it from memory. If
the contents of the window have been changed, a dialog box (described later) is
displayed to allow the user to save or discard the changes.

• Title Bar — This bar displays the name of the file associated with the window (or
"Untitled" if it has not been saved). To reposition the window on the screen, align
the mouse over this bar, then press and hold the mouse button while moving the

71
 mouse. When the mouse button is released, the window moves to its new location.
This technique is called "dragging" and is used extensively in graphics applications.

Zoom Box — This control enlarges the window to fill the screen or reduces it back
to its original size.

Resize Box — This control resizes the window by dragging.

Close Zoom
Title Bar
Box Box

i
ID1 Title HI
O

11
O
a Content Vertical
Palette - Scroll
Bar
C?

0| mm o a
T
Horizontal Scroll Bar Resize
Box

F i g . 39. Window User-Interface.

• Horizontal Scroll Bar — This control scrolls the window contents from side to side
so that a large view may be displayed in a small window. To scroll a small distance,
click the scroll bar arrow that points in the desired direction. To scroll by the
windowful, click in the gray area of the scroll bar. To scroll quickly to any part of a
drawing, drag the scroll box to a place in the scroll bar that represents the relative
position in the drawing.

• Vertical Scroll Bar — This control operates exactly as for the horizontal scroll bar,
but it moves the contents the window contents vertically.

72
 • Palette — This panel acts as a "toolbox" where the user can quickly change the
current drawing tool. Many graphics applications support tools for pointing,
drawing, erasing, and manipulating shapes. GenApp provides generic support for
an arbitrary number of rows and columns of tool types.

The generic TWindow class shown in Fig. 40 was developed to provide support for the

features just described. Instances of this class maintain a variety of instance variables. Some

variables refer to the screen data structures and display (f wptr, f contentRect, f viewRect, etc.),

whereas other deal with data files (fName, fVRefNum, f Type, etc.). However, most variables are

just Boolean flags that indicate whether certain options are in effect ( f H a s P a i e t t e , fHasGrid,

f HasXYLoc, f H a s S c r o i i B a r , etc.). Still others manage the objects related to the controls and

coordinates used to display the drawing (f P a l e t t e , f G r i d , f X Y L O C , etc.).

(10 TObject Class)

TWindow

fWPtr fDwgSize fAxesOrigin

fName fHasPaiette fGridSize
fVRefNum fPalette fHasScrollBar
fType fHasGrid fScrollBar
fContentRect flGrid fHasChanged
tViewRect fHasXYLoc fHasControls
fDestRect fXYLoc fHPrint
fDwgRect fXYUnits fUnits

O- IWindow DwgToPort -o
o- Close PortToDwg -o
o- Save DwgToXY -o
o- SaveAs XYToDwg -o
o- Print ScrollBitMap -o
o- PageSetup Draw -o
o- DoRead Activate -o
o- DoWrite Update -o
o- ReadData Idle -o
o- WriteData Click -o
o- InitOrigin Key -o
o- DwgOrigin Grow -o
O— GetDwgMouse Zoom -o
O— GetDwgEvtLoc Resize -o
F i g . 40. TWindow Class Description.

73
 Methods associated with windows provide all actions that take place in response to events

such as a mouse click in the close box. Most of these operations are self-explanatory (Close,

Save, Print, etc.), but others have resulted from the practical development of reusable software and

may require some explanation to be fully understood. Details relating to the purpose of these

methods are given with the GenApp source code [29].

Dialogs

A special kind of window, known as the "Dialog", is used to obtain information from the user.

Typical commands (Open, Close, Save, Print, etc.) may require additional data (File names, page

numbers, etc.), and dialogs allow the user to enter this information.

Static Text > Draujing Size Button

Edit Text - [ Cancel ]

W i d t h : 15.33
H e i g h t : 20.28 User Item
Radio Button
> (•)inch O cm
Pages: 4

Fig. 41. Dialog User-Interface.

The Drawing Size Dialog shown in Fig. 41 is used by most applications that offer multi-page

drawing areas. Key features of this dialog include: buttons, static text, edit text, radio buttons,

and user items. A n OK button is provided to terminate the dialog and to use the new values. The

Cancel button also terminates the dialog, but does not save the changes. Static text items are used

to enhance the dialog so that the user understands what to do and how to do it. Edit text items

allow the user to type information using the keyboard. In this case, the user may enter values for

74
the drawing width and height. These values are measured using the units selected using a radio

button. Clicking on either Inch or c m radio buttons toggles the units to the new selection (and

converts the values displayed in the edit text items). Alternatively, the user may click in the user

item to graphically indicate the size of the drawing (in page increments).

The generic T D i a l o g class shown in Fig. 42 was developed to provide support for the

features just described. Instances of this class maintain some instance variables that refer to the

screen drawing (f ResiD, fDPtr, fwindow), and others that refer to the event loop associated with

the dialog interface (f A c t i v e E d i t i t e m , fDone, fErrReported). Initialization is taken care of by

the i D i a l o g method, followed by the data-specific Setup method, and the screen Centre method.

Once a dialog is primed by the Modal method, it enters an event loop which continuously executes

the Event, v a l i d a t e , and E r r o r R e p o r t methods. If the O K button was selected, the dialog exits

this loop and performs the Save and Dispose methods.

(to TObject Class)
TDialog
4h
w
fResID fAcnveEditltem
fDPtr fDone
fWindow fErrReported

o-
o-
IDialog
Centre
Modal
Setup
—o
—o
o- Save
Dispose
Event
Validate
—o
—o
o- ErrorReport
—o
Fig. 42. TDialog Class Description.

Specialized dialogs can be created by defining new classes that have the T D i a l o g class as

their parent. The drawing size dialog shown earlier is provided by the class shown in Fig. 43.

Data for this dialog comes from the active drawing window. Instance variables that describe the

data changed by this dialog (f u n i t s , fDwgsize) and those that are required for short-term display

( f P a g e S i z e , fDwgPages, fMaxDwgPages) are initialized by the Setup method. A specialized

Event method is needed to intercept mouse clicks in the user item, otherwise all interface is

75
handled by the parent class. Each time the v a l i d a t e method is invoked, additional methods may

be used to assure that valid data has been entered. Specific procedures are provided by the parent

that allow developers to specify the data type entered in an edit text item (text, numeric, Boolean).
(to TDialog Class)
TDwgSizeDialog
•
fUnits fDwgSize
fChanged fDwgPages
fPageSize fMaxDwgPages

Setup
Save
SetDwgSize
CalcDwgSize —o
Dispose SetDwgSizeltems
Event GetDwgSizeltems
Validate CalcDwgPages
Drawltems
-o
Fig. 43. TDwgSizeDialog Class Description.

Menus

Commands are used to perform operations on the data in a drawing window. The user may invoke

these commands by selecting an item in a pull-down menu, by entering a keyboard equivalent, or

by certain kinds of mouse actions. A standard feature of most applications is the File menu shown

in Fig. 44 for opening, closing, saving, and printing documents.

Title
File keyboard
New 9 § N <- equivalent
Open... 3§0
Close §§UJ
Saue 9§S
{
Command
Group
Saue As... < ellipsis

Page Setup...
Print... 9§P
Quit 3§Q
Fig. 44. Menu User-Interface.

76
Applications

All application programs (also known as "Applications") have a standard event-driven architecture

that may be described using the class structure of Fig. 45 and the flowchart in Fig. 46. When an

application is launched from the operating system (Finder), it is initialized by the i A p p i i c a t i o n

method and then given the Run message. This results in the execution of the DoFinderRequest

method to process commands from the operating system (command-line arguments).

At this stage, the application enters a continuous loop that executes until a global variable is

set to indicate that the application is done and that it is time to quit. Each time through the event

loop, the DoMainEventLoop method is invoked to see if there any events in the queue. If an event

is found, it is submitted to the DoEvent method where it is processed. Mouse, key, activate,

update, and idle events are delegated to their respective application and window handlers.

Mouse and key events are intercepted if they pertain to menu commands. Menu selections

(and keyboard equivalents) are handled by the DoMenuCommand method. Some intrinsic commands

include: DoAbout, DoNewFile, DoOpenFile, DoClose, and D o C l o s e A l l .

GenApp is completely expandable as specialized applications can declare their own DoEvent

and DoMenuCommand methods to process events and commands not processed by the generic

application, and can let the generic events and commands be processed through inheritance.

Alternatively, specialized applications may decide to override some or all of the generic methods.
(to TObject Class)
TApplication

w
Windows

o - IAppiication Run
—o
DoFinderRequest DoMenuCommand
—o
o - DoMainEventLoop DoUpdateMenus
—o
DoEvent DoAboutApp
—o
o - DoMouseDown DoNewFile
—o
o— DoMouseUp DoOpenFile
—o
o— DoKeyDown DoNewWindow

o— Do Activate DoClose
—o
o - DoUpdate DoCloseAll
—o
o— Doldle OurWindow

Fig. 45. TApplication Class Description.

77
 application application application
Start IApplication Run DoFinderRequest

( mouseDown ) ( mouseUp ) ( keyEvent ) ( activateEvent) ( updateEvent ) ( idleEvent )

JBBBSB
application application application application application application
DoMouseDown DoMouseUp DoKeyDown DoActivate DoUpdate Doldle

window window window window window

Click Key Activate Update Idle

command

application application

DoM enuCommand DoUpdateMenus

( aboutApp^

appli cation \
DoAboutApp | DoNewFile

Fig. 46. Application Event-Driven Architecture.

78
4.2.2. External Procedures

One of the most important features of hybrid object-oriented languages is the ability to support

existing software. This is especially pertinent in the field of finite element analysis, where

specialized routines are available for the high-speed manipulation of matrices, including:

multiplication, addition and inversion. A library that was developed for the NAP project [26], has

been utilized without significant modification in Object NAP [27] and SNAP [31].

A few classes may be introduced to handle the basic matrix algebra, including the TVector

and T M a t r i x classes shown in Fig. 47 and Fig. 48. A variety of addition, scaling, multiplication,

and transposition operations are supported. Each of these methods invoke C library functions in

the same manner as a procedural program would call any of its routines.
(to TObject Class)
TVector
w
t
fn. fx

alloc Add —o
dealloc Scale —o
Free Dot -o
Max Min —o
Fig. 47. TVector Class Description.
(to TObject Class)
TMatrix

fm, fn fx

O— alloc Add —o
dealloc Scale —o
o- Free Multiply —o
Transpose MultVector —o
o- Max Min —o
Fig. 48. TMatrix Class Description.

Matrices found in numerical analysis tend to be large and sparse. With a proper numbering

scheme, a sparse matrix may be organized so that its non-zero values are located near the matrix

diagonal in a banded strip. In this case, all values that are more than the bandwidth away from the

diagonal are zero and do not have to be stored in memory. The reduction in required memory is

substantial, permitting the solution of much larger problems. A banded matrix technique shown in

79
Fig. 49 is used for the global stiffness matrix, whereas full matrices are used for the local

stiffnesses. Elements in the banded matrix are accessed by computing an offset from the start of

the array, based on the row and column numbers of the full matrix (this is a function of the index

array associated with each element).

Global Stiffness

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 1 \
Local Stiffness \
2 2 5 \
3 4 5 6
\
3
3 6 9 \
X
11 12 13 14 4 7 10 13
\
21 22 23 24 5 \ 8 iffiiiii \
\
31 32 33 34 6 \ i 2 i i 5 s l : g i 2 l\
\ \ bandwidth
41 42 43 44 7 \16 19 22 2 5 ^ - -
8
\ \
\20 23 26 29\
\ \
9 \24 27 30 33\

V 28 31 34 37_
10

32 35 38
36 39
^^:Plo ; :

not used

F i g . 49. Banded Matrix Storage.

The banded matrix class can be defined as a special kind of matrix. A l l data and methods

associated with a matrix are inherited by a banded matrix. The class description shown in Fig. 50

has no additional instance variables, and only three additional methods. A special method is

provided to permit the addition of a full matrix into the banded matrix (used during stiffness

assembly operations).

Two methods are provided to solve a system of equations using the Cholesky method of

factorization. Solution is a two-stage process:

(1) Calculation of the lower triangular Cholesky matrix.

(2) Forward and backward substitution for the solution vector.

The s o l v e method assumes that the solution is to be performed only once, so it discards the

lower triangular matrix upon completion. Conversely, the Re s o l v e method saves the partial

80
solution so that multiple vectors (load cases) can be submitted for a single structure. Interactive

analysis provided by SNAP occurs faster using the Resolve method, as this avoids unnecessary

factorization if the structure stiffness has not changed.

(to TMatrix Class)
TBandedMatrix
9

AddMatrix
Solve
ReSolve

Fig. 50. TBandedMatrix Class Description.

4.2.3. Object Lists

Engineering analysis programs make extensive use of lists. Although these lists hold arbitrary

kinds of data, the procedures used to construct, search, and alter them are identical. The T L i n k

and T L i s t classes, displayed in Fig. 51 and Fig. 52, collectively provide generic support for

doubly linked lists.

A TLink object has three instance variables. The f ob j field holds an object reference — this

is the actual data to be stored in a list. The fNext and f P r e v i o u s fields hold references to the

links before and after the given link. A chain of links can be constructed to form a list. Each link

knows who is before and after itself, so it is easy to insert and extract links from a chain. A variety

of simple methods (shown in Table 3) are provided to manipulate links.

(to TObject Class)
TLink
W
J
fObj fNext fPrevious

ILink InsertAfter
—o
o— Free InsertBefore
—o
Q— Clear Extract
—o
o- DownBy UpBy
—o
DownToObj UpToObj
—o
Fig. 51. TLink Class Description.

81
T a b l e 3. TLink Class Methods.
ILink initialize a link.
Free free a link and its data.
Clear free a link.
InsertAfter insert a new link in a list after a specified location,
InsertBefore insert a new link in a list before a specified location,
Extract extract a link from a list.
DownBy move a reference down a list by a given number of links,
DownToObj move a reference down a list until a given object is found,
UpBy move a reference up a list by a given number of links,
UpToObj move a reference up a list until a given object is found.

A T L i s t object also has three instance variables. The f L i s t s i z e field keeps track of the

number of objects currently in the list. The f Top and f Bottom fields hold references to the links at

the start and end of the list. A list is responsible for maintaining these fields in conjunction with

operations performed by its links. A variety of simple and complex methods (shown in Table 4)

are provided to manipulate lists.

(to TObject Class)
TList
1
fListSize flop fBottom

Q — IList First -o
O— Free Last —o
o- Append Insert -o
InsertList —o
O— AppendList
AppendB yPredicate InsertByPredicate -o.
o- AppendListByPredicate InsertListByPredicate -o
MoveToTop MoveToBottom -o
o- Remove —o
DeleteNum RemoveNum -o
O—
Q—
Delete
DeleteAll RemoveAll -o
o-
Q— DeleteList RemoveByPredicate -o
o- FindByObject InList -o
FindBylndex ExistsOne —o
o- FindByPredicate ExtractLink —o
o— FindLastB yPredicate DoToAll -o
o
— FindBestObject DoToAllwithlndex —o
FindGoodObject DoToSubset —o
Fig. 52. TList Class Description.

82
Table 4. TList Class Methods.
IList initialize a list

Free free a list and its data.

First find the object at the top of a list.
Last find the object at the bottom of a list.
Append append an object to the bottom of a list.

AppendList append a list of objects to the bottom of a list.

AppendByPredicate append an object at last place in a list that given predicate function is T R U E .

AppendListByPredicate append a list of objects using AppendByPredicate.

Insert insert an object at the top of a list

InsertList insert a list of objects to the top of a list (reverses order).

InsertByPredicate insert an object at first place in list that given predicate function is T R U E .
InsertListByPredicate insert a list of objects using InsertByPredicate (reverses order).
MoveToTop move an object to the top of a list.
MoveToBottom move an object to the bottom of a list.

Delete remove an object from a list and free its data.

DeleteNum remove an indexed object from a list and free its data.
DeleteAll remove all objects from a list and free their data.
DeleteList remove a list of objects from a list and free their data.
Remove remove an object from a list.
RemoveNum remove an indexed object from a list.
RemoveAll remove all objects from a list
RemoveByPredicate remove the first object that returns T R U E to a given predicate function,
InList find whether an object is in a list.
ExistsOne find whether an object that satisfies a given predicate function is in a list,
FindByObject find the index of an object if it is in a list

FindBylndex find the object located by a given index.

FindByPredicate find the first object that returns T R U E to a given predicate function,
FindLastBy Predicate find the last object that returns T R U E to a given predicate function,

FindBestObject find the best object in a list as ranked by a given predicate function,

FindGoodObject find a good object in a list as ranked by a given predicate function,

ExtractLink extract a link from a list (used internally),

DoToAll perform an action on all objects in a list,

DoToAlIwithlndex perform an indexed action on all objects in a list,

DoToSubset perform an action on a list of objects in a list.

83
4.2.4. Analytical Modelling and Interpretation

An analytical model may be constructed using a few simple building blocks. The fundamental

components used in this thesis are: solids, loads, and boundaries. Each of these components is

called a model part, and is to be directly created and operated upon by the user. The user may

draw these parts in a model window using graphical tools. Once a model has been constructed, it

must be displayed — this is done using a variety of shapes that display objects. In summary, the

most important classes of objects at the analytical level are:

(1) Model Part

(2) Shape

(3) Model Window

Model Parts

The components of an analytical model must be able to collectively represent spatial and functional

behaviour — the model parts must describe solid geometry and material, as well as force and

displacement boundary conditions. There are many alternatives available for classification of

model parts, but the hierarchy shown in Fig. 53 provides a simple and effective representation that

is sufficient for use in this thesis.

Model parts have at least two instance variables: f w i n d o w and f shape. The f w i n d o w field

holds a reference to the part owner (described later in the context of ownership links). A shape is

needed by all parts so that they may be drawn in the model window. The part kind determines

which kind of object is referenced in the shape field (rectangle, oval, polygon, etc.).

When a part is created by the user, it is initialized by the iModeiPart method within the

Create operation. If the part is successfully completed, it is added to a list maintained by its

window using the Append method. A model part may be drawn moved, resized, selected, or have

several other operations done to it until the user issues the Delete method to remove it from the list

of parts.

84
 Solids are special model parts used to describe two-dimensional structural components (this

could be generalized to three-dimensions in further research). Additional instance variables are

provided for solids to store thickness, material, finite element meshes, etc. These additional fields

are initialized using the i s o l i d method (invoked by the specialized C r e a t e method). MakeMesh,

ReduceDOF, and other specialized methods are used invoke lower level numerical analysis routines

described in the next section.

(to TObject Class)
TModelPart
T
fWindow fShape
•
O-
o-
IModelPart
Create
Offset
Move -o
O- Free Resize —o
o- Draw HitTest
—o
o- Append Select
—o
o— Delete Invalidate

TSolid TLoad TBoundary

•
fThickness fMesh fF fLocation

o—
fMaterial fBounds
o— ILoad IBoundary •o
o— ISolid o— Create Create -o
o- Create o— Update Append -o
c^- Free O SnapToSolid

o- MakeMesh
ReduceDOF TConcLoad TFixedBound

o-
TRectSolid
TDistLoad TSlideBound

TOvalSolid

TPolySolid

Fig. 53. TModelPart Class Hierarchy.

85
 TLoad and TBoundary classes collectively provide force and displacement boundary

conditions. The interaction between objects such as solids, loads, and boundaries must be

specified. For simplicity, it is assumed that both loads and boundaries are attached to solids. The

implications of this kind of attachment will be explained later.

Shapes

A l l objects displayed in the content of the model window belong to the shape class hierarchy

shown in Fig. 54. This class provides a variety of instance variables and methods to create, draw,

select, and locate shape objects.

(to TObject Class)
TShape
T
fShapeBBox fSelected

O— IShape Offset —O
Q— Free Move
—o
o- Create Resize -o
O— Fill HitTest —o
O—
O—
Frame
Draw
Select
Invalidate
—o

F i g . 54. TShape Class Hierarchy.

86
Model Window

The fwindow instance variable held by each model part is a reference to an object of the

TModeiwindow class. This window class is a specialization of the generic window provided by

GenApp. Amongst its instance variables are a list of model parts and a numerical model. The

f M o d e i P a r t s field holds a List object that stores the solids, loads, and boundaries in the current

model. The f NumericaiModei field holds a reference to current analysis methods. Linear elastic

static analyses are used in this thesis; however, this could also be extended to include other kinds

of analyses.

When the user opens a new window, it is initialized by the i M o d e i w i n d o w method.

Specialized c l o s e , i d l e , C l i c k , and Key methods incorporate a few additional functions with the

basic inherited methods. A variety of other methods are provided to deal with model part creation,

selection, display, and manipulation.

(to TWindow Class)

TModelWindow

... fModeiParts ... [NumericaiModei ...

o— Close
DModelWindow DoNewPart
—o
SelectAll
—o
Idle
Click
Draw
InSolid
—o
o- Key InBoundary
—o
o- —o
F i g . 55. TModelWindow Class Description.

87
4.2.5. Numerical Modelling, Solution, and Interpretation

A finite element analysis program can be constructed from a few simple classes. Some of these

classes are needed for spatial and functional descriptions, whereas others are related to the way the

solution is obtained. For two-dimensional numerical analysis using numerically-integrated

isoparametric elements (see Appendices A and B), some of the most important classes are:

(1) Nodes

(2) Shape Functions

(3) Gauss Points

(4) Elements

(5) Mesh

(6) Numerical Model

Nodes

A built-in concept with conventional finite element theory is the notion of node — a point of

reference in space. Displacements, forces, boundary conditions, and even the domain geometry

rely on nodes, so a natural class to begin the description of finite elements is with the node. Since

nodes occupy a point in space, there must be a set of coordinates as part of this object. Fixity of a

node can also be included in this description along with the displacements associated with the

degrees of freedom. Loads are not included with the TNode class in this implementation, as is

explained later.

Methods associated with the TNode class include procedures for node initialization and

alteration. Some procedures are needed to assign degrees of freedom to a node based on a mesh

numbering sequence, and to assign displacements to nodes once a displacement vector has been

computed.

Once a group of nodes has been created (either by reading them from a file, or by generating

them using a graphical input device), they must be stored somewhere. A n appropriate location to
88
store the node instances is in a T L i s t object. A specialized T L i s t class called TNodeList can be

used for this purpose. This list class has a few special procedures for dealing with nodes,

combined with the generic methods of all lists. A graphical representation of the resulting TNode

and TNodeList classes is shown in Fig. 56.

TObject

o- Clone Free
—o
TList

fListSize fTop ffiottom

IList Append —Q
O— Free AppendList —O
First Insert
o— —o
aNodeList TNodeList

Nodel
O— AssignDOF AssignDisp
—o
-• ( •

Node 2 TNode

fX fDOF ftj

Node 3 O— INode

o—
AssignDOF AssignDisp
-o
Fig. 56. Node List Management.

89
Shape Functions

The shape function class appears as shown in Fig. 57. This class contains references to: the shape

functions (N), the derivatives (Nr, and NS), and the determinant of the Jacobian. Methods leading

up to the computation of the strain displacement matrix (B) include procedures which calculate the

product of the inverse Jacobian matrix with the linear operator, as well as a utility to store the

derivative vectors into the Nrs matrix used in subsequent multiplications. A n additional utility is

desired (LocaiToGiobai) to compute the global coordinates (x, y) of any point in an element given

the natural coordinates (r, s) for subsequent use in stress plot output.

(to TObject Class)

TShapeFcns

fN fNr fNs
fDeterm in ant

o- invJL
Nrs
LocaiToGiobai

BMatrix
—o
—Q

TRect4NShapeFcns TRect8NShapeFcns TTri3NShapeFcns TTri6NShapeFcns

O— LocaiToGiobai O— LocaiToGiobai o— LocaiToGiobai

o- LocaiToGiobai
O— BMatrix O— BMatrix o— BMatrix BMatrix

Fig. 57. Shape Function Class Hierarchy. o-

Gauss Points

The TGauss class appears as shown in Fig. 58. This class contains references to: the total number

of points (used to decide how much storage to allocate), as well as the actual points and weights in

vector form. The only method used is one to initialize the data stored in the Gauss vectors once it

has been determined that an element needs that data. Since Gauss data is the same for all elements

that use the same kind of integration, these vectors can be shared by an element class. This could

be provided directly by a class system which supplies class variables, but it is also easily done

explicitly in Object Pascal.

90
 (to TObject Class)
TGauss

fTotal fWeights
• fPoints
O—I IGauss

TRect4NGauss TRect8NGauss TTri3NGauss TTri6NGauss

o— IRect4NGauss
o—
IRect8NGauss
o- ITri3NGauss
o- ITri6NGauss

Fig. 58. TGauss Class Hierarchy.

The TShapeFcns and TGauss classes employ similar class hierarchies. Although it may

appear that in many cases the generic procedures are overridden, this is not necessarily the case. If

a generic procedure can be used as part of specialized procedure, the overridden procedure may

still be inherited between supplementary actions performed by the special class. Initialization

operations found in both TShapeFcns and TGauss generic classes are invoked in this manner after

certain key parameters have been set. This kind of class-interaction optimization can be beneficial

if properly controlled or can lead to unnecessarily complicated situations when used in excess. At

all times it is important to retain a certain measure of independence, as that is the underlying

principle of object-oriented programming.

Elements

Finite elements are represented using the TElement class shown in Fig. 59. Elements have an

instance variable called f window that holds a reference to the owner (a Twindow instance). This

provides a link back to generic methods needed in drawing operations. Otherwise, a TElement

object has only a few simple instance variables to hold material, nodes, Gauss points, shape

functions, thickness, etc.

Generic methods such as: bandwidth computation, index assembly for adding the local

stiffness to the global, retrieval of nodal coordinates and displacements can be carried out

91
regardless of the element formulation. Stiffness and stress computation routines can use some

submethods from the shape function and gauss classes. Specialized methods are required for each

element class to perform operations such as drawing its nodes and boundaries (node numbering

schemes are often element-specific, so a generic method is impractical).

(to TObject Class)

TElement

fWindow fGauss fStiffness

fMaterial fShapeFcns
fNodes flhickness

o— Element CalcBandwidth -o
o— Indices CalcStiffness -o
NodeCoords CalcStress -o
o— Draw CalcError -o
TRect4NEIement TRect8NEIement TTri3NElement TTri6NElement

o— Draw o- Draw Draw o- Draw

o— o- o—
F i g . 59. TElement Class Hierarchy.
a-

Mesh

An ordered list of elements known as a TMesh is used to numerically model each solid part as

shown in Fig. 60. A TMesh object has an instance variable called window that holds a reference to

the owner (a TWindow instance). This provides a link back to generic methods needed in drawing

and mesh generation operations. Otherwise, a TMesh object has only a few simple instance

variables that include: the shape of the mesh (and of the T S o l i d parent), the nodes and elements,

and some useful flags.

A TMesh object is initialized using the iMesh method after (or during) its creation by its solid

owner. Methods provided for reducing and assigning degrees of freedom of its nodes, act in

parallel to methods that actually alter the fixities of the nodes based on interaction with TBoundary

92
objects. A variety of other methods are needed to invoke bandwidth, stiffness, stress, and error

computation over the whole list of elements.

(to TObject Class)
TMesh +
m
W

fWindow fNodes fBounds

fShape fElements fShow

o— ReduceDOF
IMesh CalcStiffness
-o
o-AssignDOF AddStiffnessTo
-o
o— CalcStresses
—o
-o
o-
o-
Constrain
CalcBandwidth
CalcErrors
Refine
-o
o- -o
Fig. 60. TMesh Class Description.

Numerical Model

The linear elastic static analyses used in SNAP are represented using the TNumericalModel class

shown in Fig. 61. A n object of this class is held by TModeiwindow instances. This clarifies the

previously mentioned advantage of maintaining a reference to the window with several low-level

objects in the numerical model — high-level controllers (described later) can use this reference to

invoking appropriate numerical solution methods. This way, solutions are not directly built into

the analytical and numerical model framework, rather they may be attached as needed in response

to goal- or event-driven operations.

(to TObject Class)

TNumericalModel -t-
w
fWindow fStiffness fNU
flteration fLoads ffiand width
fScale fDisplacements

o— rNumericalModel ReduceDOF —o
CalcSuffnessMatrix AssignDOF —o
o- CalcLpadVector CalcStresses
—o
o- CalcDisplacements CalcErrors

Fig. 61. TNumericalModel Class Description.

93
4.2.6. Program Control

This section describes the global architecture of the SNAP data and control structures. Ownership

of the objects used in SNAP is structured as shown in Fig. 62. As mentioned earlier, each

application program manages a list of window objects. Each of these windows is in turn

responsible for a complete analysis problem. A hierarchy of descending ownership links is needed

in order to delegate work to subordinate objects — commands originating from the window (or

even the application) can be delegated through this framework. Analytical and numerical

components of a problem are contained in the instance variables f M o d e i P a r t s and

f NumericaiModei. The fModeiParts field holds a list of solids, loads, and boundaries. Solids

have links to low-level numerical analysis objects through their instance variable field fMesh. A

TMesh object goes one step deeper by storing a list of TElement objects in its f Elements field.
TModelWindow
• = Window

TSolid TLoad TBoundary TNumericalModel

fElement;

TElement

•
Fig. 62. Descending Ownership Links.

94
 Alternatively, it is sometimes necessary for low-level objects to communicate to high-level

objects through a hierarchy of ascending ownership links. TModeiPart, TMesh, TElement, and

TNumericaiModei objects all have fields that hold reference to their TModelWindow owner.
TModelWindow

fWindow

TNumericaiModei
{R}=[K]{D}

F i g . 63. Ascending Ownership Links.

The event-driven architecture of GenApp provides the primary control structure for SNAP.

Within this global framework, analytical modelling and interpretation activities take place due to

direct user involvement (mouse and keyboard input, etc.). Creation, movement, and alteration of

model parts (solids, loads, and boundaries) can be equated to the operations performed on their

graphical representations, so the user can easily understand how and when to perform actions.

However, the lower level operations that must take place in a numerical analysis program are

considerably more complex. Mesh generation, equation assembly, solution, and subsequent

response processing are activities that must be performed, yet if the user is allowed to randomly

enter and ask for information at the analytical level it is essential that the numerical analysis control

take place using a similar paradigm.

95
 If SNAP is to perform numerical analysis at every available opportunity, it should place a

procedure somewhere (or at several locations) in the GenApp event loop. Since the application

Do i d l e method is executed whenever the analytical level is in an idle mode (the user is doing

nothing), this makes it an ideal location to support numerical analysis through controller task

performance. Each time its Do i d l e method is executed, SNAP simply invokes the Task methods

for each of the modelling, solution, and interpretation controllers as shown in Fig. 64. Whether

the Task method actually invokes any operations depends on the specific controller and the current

state of the event queue.

application modellingController solutionController interpretationController

Doldle Task Task Task

Fig. 64. Numerical Analysis Task Performance.

Task performance within a generic controller takes place as shown in Fig. 64. Each time the

controller is asked to perform a task, it enters its own event loop. First the controller

GetNextEvent method is called to see if there are any events that may be handled by this controller

(it does this by checking parameters determined at initialization). If there are no events then it stops

execution (returns control to the caller), otherwise it passes the event to the controller DoEvent

method for processing. Each controller can use the same generic event loop, as long as it has its

own specialized DoEvent method.

The modelling controller shown in Fig. 65 has a specialized DoEvent method that processes

events related to the creation, alteration, and refinement of solids, loads, and boundaries.

Additional events are supported to take care of specialized modelling activities such as degree of

freedom reduction and assignment (node numbering). Since the controller operates at a high level,

it can take advantage of both ascending and descending ownership links. For example, events that

are directed at solids can climb the hierarchy to find the numerical solution methods that are needed

for use on the lower level components such as the mesh.

96
 ( create j ( move ) ( refine ) (reduceDOF ] ( assign DO F~)

numericalModel numericalModel numericalMocUl •AtModel

numer'u numericalModel

Create Move Refine ReduceDOF AssignDOF

Fig. 65. Modelling Task Event Loop.

The solution controller shown in Fig. 66 has a specialized DoEvent method that processes

events related to the construction, assembly, and solution of equilibrium equations. Stiffness

matrix computation starts with the individual elements and then continues with the assembly of a

global stiffness matrix. Since elements (and a mesh of elements) can compute their stiffness

independently from the assembly process it is logical to have two kinds of events. For example,

when the solution controller receives a stiffness event for a mesh (or solid) it recognizes that

computation is required, whereas if the event is directed at the numerical model the activity

performed is the assembly of the global stiffness. Load and displacement events invoke the

remaining activities of load vector assembly and solution for the displacement vector (using the

Cholesky method of factorization).

The interpretation controller shown in Fig. 67 has a specialized DoEvent method that

processes events relating to the computation of stresses and errors associated with a given

displacement field. These events simply invoke low-level operations within all elements to

compute and report.

97
 ( stiffness )

numericalModel numeric
:alModel
CalcStiffnessMatrixJ CalcDisplacements E

Fig. 66. Solution Task Event Loop.

masaaamssBBSsa
controller
' Start J
GetNextEvent

( Stop J

" I interpretationController
DoEvent

numericalModel numericalModel \
CalcS tresses CalcErrors j

Fig. 67. Interpretation Task Event Loop.

98
 Since many kinds of actions can be performed by the user, and the analysis program has to

decide when and how to process these actions, context-dependent conditional relationships must be

introduced in the event-handling mechanisms. This could be done by embedding if-then constructs

throughout the source code, but a much more practical method involves the use of an internal

expert system that determines and controls event-generation based on goal-driven inference.

The class structures required to implement inference in the object-oriented environment with

the analysis program are shown in Figs. 68, 69,70 and 71. The inference engine described by the

T l n f e r e n c e E n g i n e class has instance variables that hold references to the rules in a knowledge

base, the rules currently being examined, the facts in a specific problem, and the goals to be

attained to find a solution. Instances of this class may be initialized to a specific knowledge base

using the i i n f e r e n c e E n g i n e method and to a specific context using the i c o n t e x t method.

(to TObject Class)

TlnferenceEngine -t-
w
fRuleBase fContext Doumal fGoals

IinferenceEngine
Free
ForwardChain
BackwardChain
—o
IContext Backtrack —o
Fig. 68. TlnferenceEngine Class Description.

A mixed rule format (described in chapter 2) is implemented using the TRule class. This

format is capable of representing a list of statements in its f c o n d i t i o n s field and a single

statement for a hypothesis in its f H y p o t h e s i s field. In addition, it holds a list of actions

(event-prompts) in its f A c t i o n s field.

(to TObject Class)
TRule
_T
fConditions fHypothesis fActions

o- IRule Match -o
Execute —o
O— Possible
Fig. 69. TRule Class Description.

99
 Logical statements are provided by the TStatement class. A statement is either T R U E or

F A L S E and either P R O V E N or NOT-PROVEN. The f value and f Proved fields are just Boolean

variables that keep track of the statement's condition.

(to TObject Class)

TStatement
t
fValue fProved

O— TStatement

Fig. 70. TStatement Class Description.

Prove
-o

Actions can be introduced into an event-driven architecture by posting event-prompts. The

T A c t i o n class provides instance variables that determine what message should be relayed and to

whom it should be sent when an action has been invoked.

(to TObject Class)

TAction

ffiventCode fTarget fMessage

IAction Execute —O
Fig. 71. TAction Class Description.

The T l n f e r e n c e E n g i n e class supports two kinds of inference: forward and backward

chaining. The algorithms for these two approaches are illustrated in Figs. 72 and 73. In the case

of a rule-based forward-chaining, each rule is tested to see if it can generate new information. If a

rule is successfully proven, the new data it has generated is used to see if more rules can be

proven. The cycle continues until no additional rules can be proven.

Backward-chaining is based on a selective application of the rules to obtain a specific goal

state. The algorithm used in the TlnferenceEngine class is essentially the same as found in most

rule-based systems that support mixed forward and backward chaining with backtracking.

100
101
4.3. Operation
This section uses an example to illustrate how SNAP performs numerical analysis. Descriptions

are given for: the user-interface, the underlying flow of events caused by user-actions, and the

goal-driven event-generation done by SNAP'S expert system.

4.3.1. User-Interface
The example problem shown in Fig. 74 can be created in three steps:
(1) Draw a Boundary object — the gray blob to which the beam is attached.
(2) Draw a Solid object — the rectangular beam.
(3) Draw a Load object — the concentrated load shown at the beam tip.

n = Untitled #1 mm
III A
ii

nI
in '
a saw / T7~^~S

......

01 iiijiillllililiillliiiliili
F i g . 74. SNAP User-Interface. 0
Drawing is a familiar activity for persons who use C A D programs. This simply means to use

a graphical input device (mouse, pen, etc.) to create a shape in a computer model. Different kinds

of objects are drawn depending on the currently selected tool. In Fig. 74, the palette has eight

tools with the top left one selected. Once the user completes drawing, SNAP takes over and

automatically performs all numerical analysis tasks including: mesh generation, stiffness and load

computation, displacement solution, and stress and error output. Displaced shapes and stress

contours may be graphically overlaid on the original model (based on flags set using the menus).

102
4.3.2. Flow of Events

SNAP executes numerical analysis in response to drawing actions performed by a user. The exact

procedures followed by SNAP depend on the kind of problem being analysed and the status of the

knowledge-base in SNAP'S expert system. This section describes a sample session with SNAP.

Before creating a model, the user can adjust the screen display to suit the problem. Grid lines

shown in Fig. 74 are evenly spaced starting from the top-left corner of the drawing window. The

grid spacing and the position of the axes can be set using the dialogs shown in Figs. 75 and 76.

These dialogs are displayed in response to appropriate selections in the Options menu.

Grid Spacing
Cancel )
100.0
(?) mm O inch
O cm O ft
Om

Fig. 75. Grid Spacing Dialog.

(

Rues 1 O K ) )
Cancel
top 1000.0
left -100.0
<•> mm O i n c h
O cm Oft
Om

Fig. 76. Axes Dialog.

103
 A TBoundary object can be created by selecting the corresponding palette tool and drawing

an arbitrary shape as shown in Fig. 77. SNAP responds by posting a C r e a t e message in the

numerical analysis event loop. Along with the message is a reference to the boundary object, so

when the modelling controller extracts this event from the event queue, it has the object to be

operated on. A ReduceDOF event may be posted to the window's numerical solution if there are

any affected existing solids (none in this case).

Fig. 77. Boundary Object.

A T S o l i d object can be attached to the newly created boundary. Before specifying its

location, the user can adjust the default thickness and material for the solid using the dialogs shown

in Figs. 78 and 79. In this case, a thickness of 100 mm and material properties of E = 200,000 MPa

and v = 0.3 will be used by the linear analysis procedures in SNAP. A l l solids created use the

default values as set by the user. If the user wants to subsequently change any value, this may be

done by selecting the object (or objects) to be altered and recalling the same dialogs. This permits

the flexible definition of models with many solids having unique or shared properties.

104
 Thickness t OK
10.0 Cancel )
<§)mm Oinch
O cm O ft
Om

Fig. 78. Thickness Dialog.

Material
CSD
Cancel
a 300.0
(S) MPa
Oksi
E = 200000.0

Poissons Ratio = 0.30

Fig. 79. Material Dialog.

The user can create a T S o l i d object using the rectangular palette tool as shown in Fig. 80.

SNAP responds by posting a C r e a t e event with the new solid object. The modelling controller

intercepts this event, and may cause events that: create a mesh, reduce the degrees of freedom,

assign the overall node and degree of freedom numbers, and compute the stiffness of the elements

in the new mesh. Some events are directly generated by other events (degrees of freedom

reduction events are always generated when a solid is created), whereas others take place as a

result of logical computations performed by SNAP'S expert system (events such as stiffness

computation and error estimation may be invoked by actions in goal-driven event-generation).

105
Exactly when and how events are generated is explained in the next section with reference to the

complete example solution.

IU=I Untitled #1
A
lUl i
<>—o- O A O -0—6.
Rectangular |U*|
Solid tool
a A—o-
O—< O 4 i O < >—O-

o 6 o <> o 6 o

tont ••;
Fig. 80. Boundary and Solid Objects.

A T L o a d object can be attached to the newly created solid. Before specifying its location, the

user can adjust the default magnitude using the concentrated load dialog shown in Fig. 81. In this

case, the load is a vertical load of 2 kN. As with properties for solid objects, loads may be

subsequently altered using this same dialog.

Concentrated Load S I
Cancel
FK =
0.00
Fy - -2.00
< S ) k N Okips

Fig. 81. Concentrated Load Dialog.

106
 When the user adds a T L o a d object to the model, SNAP responds by posting a C r e a t e event

with the load object. This results in subsequent events that: attach the load to a specific solid

object, compute the contribution of the load object to the global load vector, and instigate the

displacement solution process. Displacements are obtained by the Cholesky method of

factorization using the global banded stiffness matrix and the global load vector. Once a

displacement vector is computed, the nodes are assigned the new displaced values and the

displaced shape shown in Fig. 82 may be drawn.

=•^9 Untitled #1
•1 A
n
CZ

1 o
Hill O
Fig. 82. Boundary, Solid, and Load Objects.

The displaced shape is controlled by the Displacements Dialog of Fig. 83. In this case, the

displacements were automatically magnified 989.3 times to create an aesthetically pleasing display.

The user can override the default by typing a new value into this dialog, or can turn the display off

by clicking the mouse in the appropriate control.

107
 Displacements
Cancel
Shouj displacements
Automatic magnification
M a g n i f i c a t i o n : 989.3

Fig. 83. Displacements Dialog.

To display stresses due to the load, the user can adjust the range used for stress-shading as

shown in Fig. 84. In this case, shades from white to black are uniformly distributed over the

range 0.0 to 10.0 MPa. Turning the stress display on results in the stress pattern (stress-norm)

shown in Fig. 85.

Stresses
C a n c e lJ
Show stresses
Automatic shading
10.0
<S)MPa
O* s i
0.0

Fig. 84. Stresses Dialog.

108
 iEUE Untitled #1
• A <0

•
ft m
a

Fig. 85. Stress Display.

Numerically integrated finite element solutions yield stresses at the Gauss points. These

values can be extrapolated from the Gauss points out to the nodes for each element. For this

reason, nodes that are attached to more than one element have multiple values for stresses. The

variance of these stresses is known as the inter-element discrepancies and gives a good measure of

the solution error. To display the errors, the user can adjust the number of refinement iterations

and the maximum inter-element percentage error permitted as shown in Fig. 86. In this case, 3

iterations were allowed, and a maximum error of 10%. Turning the error display on results in the

errors shown in Fig. 87.

Errors
Cancel
• Show errors
K lA u t o m a t i c r e f i n e m e n t
Maximum iterations:
M a x i m u m % e r r o ' 4r :

Fig. 86. Errors Dialog.

109
Fig. 87. Error Display.

If the error in any element exceeds the specified value for the maximum allowable percentage

error (10% in this case), a R e f i n e event will be posted for the solid object that has the error. The

beam problem shown in Fig. 87 has a maximum inter-element discrepancy of only 9%, so no

refinement was necessary.

SNAP provides many other features not discussed here, such as: object relocation and

resizing functions, user-directed calculation, and process interruption. Refer to the SNAP manual

for further details [30].

4.3.3. Goal-Driven Event-Generation

The majority of SNAP'S operation is built around its event-driven architecture; however, many

problems can be most efficiently solved using a combination of goal-driven and event-driven

techniques. This section describes the sequence of events and the logical computations performed

by SNAP for the sample session given in the previous section.

As already mentioned, some events are directly caused by user-actions whereas others result

from logical operations performed by SNAP'S expert system. In order to understand how

goal-driven event-generation works it is necessary to introduce some of the rules used by SNAP

(see Table 5.). These rules are expressed using a mixed format (described in chapter 2).

110
T a b l e 5. Rules.
HaveErrors then ...

©
HaveSolution
if.
and d o .

HaveS tresses HaveErrors then ...

© if.
CalcErrors and d o .

HaveDisplacements HaveS tresses then ...

© if.
CalcS tresses and d o .

HaveS tifmessMatrix HaveDisplacements then...

HaveLoadVector
CalcDisplacements and d o .

©
HaveLocalStiffness HaveStiffhessMatrix then ...
if. HaveAssignedDOF
CalcS tiffnessM atrix and d o .

©
HaveLoads HaveLoadVector then ...
if. HaveAssignedLXDF
CalcLoadVector and d o .

©
HaveReducedDOF HaveAssignedDOF then ...
AssignDOF and d o .

User-Action Events

Actions such as drawing the boundary, solid, and load objects result in events that are directly

handled by the modelling controller. These events may generate subsequent events that reduce

degrees of freedom or that set flags to tell SNAP what is happening. In this problem, when the

user draws the TBoundary object, a Create event is intercepted by the modelling controller. Since

no other parts exist at this time, nothing else takes place. When the user draws the TSolid object,

another C r e a t e event is intercepted by the modelling controller; however, this one sets the fact

HaveLocalStiffness to T R U E & proven (after invoking the mesh creation procedure) and posts

a subsequent ReduceDOF event to the solid object. The modelling controller also handles this event

and sets the fact HaveReducedDOF to T R U E & proven if the solid overlaps the boundary area. At

this time, the modelling controller asks SNAP'S expert system to generate other events as needed

111
in order to obtain a solution. It is immediately obvious to an expert that solution is not yet possible

as no loads have been applied to the structure. When the user draws the T L o a d object, another

Create event is intercepted by the modelling controller. This one sets the fact HaveLoads to

T R U E & proven and again asks SNAP'S expert system to generate other events as needed in order

to obtain a solution.

Goal-Driven Events

The expert system used in SNAP provides simple forward and backward chaining inference

coupled with a backtracking feature. Consider the first time the modelling controller asked SNAP

to generate events for a solution. The inference engine begins by searching its fact-base to see if

the goal is already known (proven T R U E or FALSE). Since HaveSoiution is not known, the

rules are searched for hypotheses that contain this fact Rule number 1 indicates that in order to get

a solution, the errors must be obtained. Searching the facts and rules for this new goal leads rule

number 2, which indicates that in order to get the errors, the stresses must be obtained. The

following sequence is obtained by searching for all conditions that must be satisfied in order to

meet the original goal ( HaveSoiution ).

rule 1 to get HaveSoiution need HaveErrors

rule 2 to get HaveErrors need HaveS tresses
rule 3 to get HaveS tresses need HaveDisplacements
rule 4 to get HaveDisplacements need HaveStiffnessMatrix & HaveLoadVector
rule 5 to get HaveStiffnessMatrix need HaveLocalStiffness & HaveAssignedDOF
rule 6 to get HaveLoadVector need HaveLoads & HaveAssignedDOF
rule 7 to get HaveAssignedDOF need HaveReducedDOF

After creating the boundary and the solid, conditions HaveLocalStiffness and

HaveReducedDOF will be proven T R U E ; however, HaveLoads will remain unproven. This means

that backward chaining will stop at rule 6 since it is not possible to prove HaveLoadVector.

Once the load object is added, the fact HaveLoads is now proven T R U E and backward

chaining inference can be used to obtain a solution. All rules marked for execution will be invoked

in logical order leading to the hypothesis HaveSoiution. As each rule is proven, its hypothesis is

112
set to T R U E and its list of actions are added to the analysis event queue. Unlike many existing

inference engines offering mixed backward and forward chaining, this expert system does not

actually carry out the rule actions by itself. Rather, it merely lets the event-driven control of SNAP

carry out the actions at some convenient subsequent time. Starting with rule 7, the list of rules to

be executed is as follows:

execute rule 7 gives HaveAssignedDOF post event Assign DOF

execute rule 6 gives HaveLoadVector post event CalcLoadVector
execute rule 5 gives HaveS tiffnessMatrix post event CalcStiffnessMatrix
execute rule 4 gives HaveDisplacements post event CalcDisplacements
execute rule 3 gives HaveS tresses post event CalcS tresses
execute rule 2 gives HaveErrors post event CalcErrors
execute rule 1 gives HaveSolution goal obtained

When GenApp allows the modelling, solution, and interpretation controllers to perform their

pending tasks (during idle time), these controllers draw the events from the queue and process

them. Events posted during backward chaining are handled as follows: the modelling controller

will intercept AssignDOF; the solution controller will process CalcLoadVector,

CalcStiffnessMatrix, and CalcDisplacements; and the interpretation controller does

Caicstresses and CalcErrors. During error computation, a R e f i n e event will be posted if the

error is larger than a specified value and the entire process starts over (the logical computation

process undergoes a backtracking operation).

113
5. Conclusions and Recommendations

This thesis explores the application of some of the more practical artificial intelligence

techniques developed to date in the field of engineering analysis. The limitations of

conventional computer-aided analysis programs provide the motivation for knowledge

automation and development of a hybrid approach for constructing and controlling

engineering analysis software. The problems exairiined include:

(1) Identification of applicable artificial intelligence technology.

(2) Design of a hybrid system for engineering analysis.
(3) Development of an intelligent finite element analysis program.

5.1. Conclusions
The general conclusion of this thesis is that a variety of artificial intelligence techniques can be used

to improve the engineering analysis process. Existing A l technology may not necessarily provide

an immediate solution for the automation of knowledge, but it can help to simplify existing

problems and to guide future research. Application of selected A l techniques to engineering

analysis, as provided by the SNAP program, demonstrates the potential improvements offered to

software developers and users by the hybrid approach to analysis software development.

5.1.1. Al Techniques for Engineering Analysis

Object-oriented programming, generic application frameworks, event-driven architectures for

interactive analysis, and goal-driven event-generation using a knowledge-based expert system are

selected from the many available artificial intelligence techniques to simplify the development of

engineering analysis computer software and to help organize the related knowledge.

Object-oriented programming reduces the size and complexity of application software,

resulting in shorter development times and more reliable source code. Generic application

frameworks that are offered by object-oriented environments provide an event-driven architecture

114
that may be used by developers of hybrid engineering software. Problems associated with

event-driven interactive analysis, in dealing with conditional task processing, can be overcome by

using goal-driven event-generation as the analysis paradigm.

A hybrid solution that employs a framework of controllers and resources is proposed to

replace the alternative conventional and intelligent interface systems. This approach promotes the

development of small, self-contained packages that may be driven by high-level programs such as

knowledge-based expert systems, rather than trying to develop complex A l software to run

programs that are already too large, too complex, and out-of-date.

Detailed description of the implementation of an intelligent analysis program called SNAP

unifies the concepts presented in this thesis and hopefully draws attention to the importance of

research in this field. Emphasis is placed on: the kinds of objects used to represent the analysis

components; the kinds of events used to perform the modelling, solution, and interpretation tasks;

and the use of an expert system to control analysis within an event-driven environment.

5.1.2. Comparison with Conventional Analysis

The main difference between SNAP and conventional analysis programs is related to the control

architecture. Whereas conventional analysis programs use algorithms that perform a specified

number and sequence of operations to obtain a solution, SNAP employs an event-driven

architecture that processes analysis tasks in any order required by the current problem. This

flexibility is obtained by defining the relationships between analysis operations using heuristics and

by using a knowledge-based expert system to logically determine the required operations to obtain

a solution.

115
5.2. Recommendations for Further Research
This section describes a series of projects that are suitable for graduate students in the field of

engineering analysis. Some projects are direct extensions of this thesis, while others are related to

topics that were investigated during preliminary or subsequent research.

5.2.1. Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Engineering Design

Engineering analysis is only part of the engineering design process. The research performed in

this thesis could be implemented in a hybrid system for engineering design. Developers of such a

system should investigate the control structures and resources used in the conceptual, preliminary,

and final design activities. A n event-driven architecture, similar to that found in SNAP, could be

used by an integrated design program.

In addition to the basic framework of the analysis problem (modelling, solution, and

interpretation), a set of high-level classes should be developed for the organization of resources,

constraints, and objectives. The designer who uses this tool should be able to specify a problem in

terms of functional requirements and to receive a solution from the design system that is both

practical (heuristically) and sound (satisfies all design requirements).

5.2.2. Knowledge Design for Engineering

Conventional analysis relies heavily on analysts for knowledge-intensive tasks. A better

understanding of the domain knowledge is required in order to achieve automation. Knowledge

design for engineering involves the formalization of expertise using a tool that can represent

complex real-world problems. A development tool, such as NExpert Object [58], should be used

so that the research can start at a high level. Rather than dealing with details relating to numerical

computation, this project could concentrate on the acquisition, representation, and manipulation of

the analyst's heuristical knowledge.

116
 Some of the key problems to be considered include: analytical representation of spatial and

functional descriptions; transformation of analytical models into appropriate numerical formats

based on available analysis tools; and analytical/physical interpretation techniques.

5.2.3. Knowledge-Based Optimal Analysis

Analysis programs designed and implemented by expert analysts and programmers may provide

efficient solutions to current problems; however, increased specialization and advancing

technology will soon make it impossible to provide optimal analysis. The proposed solution is to

automate the selection and application of low-level analysis components, so that the analysis

program can change itself to provide the best analysis based on the problem being solved.

One of the key components associated with this project is the development of a

knowledge-based system that can organize and solve equations in the same manner as an expert.

In the case of a numerical analysis program such as SNAP, this would involve the representation

of equations for stiffness, displacement, stress, and error computation. Using its knowledge base,

the equation-solving expert-system should be able to identify: the order in which the equations are

applied, where the data is stored, and what calculations can be used in multiple contexts (eg.

stiffness, stress, and error computations share certain intermediate matrices). The potential savings

in numerical computation offered by a system of this kind can enhance present computing

technology, and will be important for future technologies.

117
References
1. Adeli, H.; Paek, Y.J. Computer-Aided Anaysis of Structures in InterLisp Environment.
Computers & Structures 23, 393-407, 1986.

2. Adeli, H . ; Balasubramanyam, K . V . A Knowledge-Based System for Design of Bridge

Trusses. Computing in Civil Engineering 2,1-20,1988.

3. Allen, R.H. Expert Systems in Structural Engineering: Works in Progress. Computing in

Civil Engineering 1, 312-319, 1987.

4. Allen, R . H . ; Boarnet, M . G . ; Culbert, C.J.; Savely, R.T. Using Hybrid Expert System
Approaches for Engineering Applications. Engineering with Computers 2, 95-110, 1987.

5. Apple Computer, Inc. Inside Macintosh™: Volumes I, II, & III. Reading, Massachusetts,
U S A : Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1985.

6. Apple Computer, Inc. MacApp Programmer's Manual. Cupertino, California, USA, 1986.

7. Bathe, K.-J. Finite element procedures in engineering analysis. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, U S A : Prentice-Hall, 1982.

8. Bennett, J.; Creary, L . ; Engelmore, R.; Melosh, R. SACON: A Knowledge-Based

Consultant for Structural Analysis. Technical Report STAN-CS-78-699, California, USA:
Stanford University Press, 1978.

9. Bletzinger, K . - U . ; Kimmich, S.; Stegmuller, H . Dokumentation fiir das Programmsystem

CARAT, Mitteilung Nr. 7. Institut fiir Baustatik der Universitat Stuttgart. (Ed. Professor
Dr.-Ing. E . Ramm). Stuttgart, West Germany, 1988.

10. Bollay, D.; McConnell, J.; Reali, R.; Ritz, D. ExperCommonLISP Documentation.
Santa Barbara, Cahfornia, USA: The ExperTelligence Press, 1986.

11. Boole, G . An Investigation of the Laws of Thought on Which Are Founded the
Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities. 1854.

118
12. Brachman, R.J.; Levesque, H.J. Readings in Knowledge Representation. Los Altos,
California, U S A : Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1985.

13. Budd, T. A Little Smalltalk. Reading, Massachusetts, U S A : Addison-Wesley Publishing

Company, Inc., 1987.

14. Byte Special Issue on Smalltalk. Byte Magazine 6: 14-378, 1981.

15. Byte Special Issue on Object-Oriented Languages. Byte Magazine 8:136-233,1986.

16. Cagan, J.; Genberg, V . PLASHTRAN: An Expert Consultant on Two-dimensional Finite

Element Modeling Techniques. Engineering with Computers 2,199-208, 1987.

17. Charniak, E . ; McDermott, D . Introduction to Artificial Intelligence. Reading,

Massachusetts, U S A : Addison-Wesley, 1985.

18. Dawe, D.J. Matrix andfiniteelement displacement analysis of structures. Oxford, England:
Clarendon Press, 1984.

19. Dym, C . L . EXPERT SYSTEMS: New Approaches to Computer-aided Engineering.

Engineering with Computers 1,9-25, 1985.

20. Fenves, S.J. A Framework for Cooperative Development of a Finite Element Modeling
Assistant. In: Reliability of Methods for Engineering Analysis: Proceedings of the First
International Conference. (Eds. K.-J. Bathe; D . R J . Owen). University College, Swansea,
U . K . : Pineridge Press. 475-486, 1986.

21. Fenves, S.J. Personal Communication, 1987.

22. Forde, B.W.R. Iteration Procedures for Sudden Local Alteration of Structural Stiffness.
Mitteilung Nr. 6. Institut fur Baustatik der Universitat Stuttgart. (Ed. Professor Dr.-Ing.
E . Ramm). Stuttgart, West Germany, 1986.

23. Forde, B.W.R.; Stiemer, S.F. Improved Arc-Length Orthogonality Methods for Nonlinear
Finite Element Analysis. Computers & Structures 27, 625-630, 1987.

119
24. Forde, B.W.R. Inside NAP: Technical documentation for the NAP numerical analysis
program. Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
B.C., Canada, 1988.

25. Forde, B.W.R. Inside Object NAP: Technical documentation for the Object NAP numerical
analysis program. Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 1988.

26. Forde, B.W.R. NAP: Source code for the NAP numerical analysis program. Department
of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 1988.

27. Forde, B.W.R. Object NAP: Source code for the Object NAP numerical analysis program.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B . C . ,
Canada, 1988.

28. Forde, B.W.R.; Stiemer, S.F. ESA: Expert Structural Analysis for Engineers. Computers
& Structures 29, 171-174, 1988.

29. Forde, B.W.R. GenApp: A Generic Application Framework. Department of Civil

Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 1989.

30. Forde, B.W.R. Inside SNAP: Technical documentation for the SNAP numerical analysis
program. Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
B.C., Canada, 1989.

31. Forde, B.W.R. SNAP: Source code for the SNAP numerical analysis program.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B . C . ,
Canada, 1989.

32. Forde, B.W.R.; Foschi, R.O.; Stiemer, S.F. Object-Oriented Finite Element Analysis. In
Print: Computers & Structures, 1989.

33. Forde, B.W.R.; Russell, A . D . ; Stiemer, S.F. Object-Oriented Knowledge Frameworks. In

Print: Engineering with Computers, 1989.

120
34. Furuta, H . ; Tu, K.S.; Yao, J.T.P. Structural engineering applications of expert systems.
Computer Aided Design 17,410-419,1985.

35. Giere, R.N. Understanding Scientific Reasoning. New York, N.Y., USA: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1979.

36. Gilmore, J.F.; Howard, C ; Pulaski, K. A Comprehensive Evaluation of Expert System

Tools. SPLE 657 Applications of Artificial Intelligence IV, 194-208, 1986.

37. Goldberg, A.; Robson, D. Smalltalk-80: The Language and Its Implementation. Reading,
Massachusetts, USA: Addison-Wesley, 1983.

38. Gregory, B.L.; Shephard, M.S. Design of a Knowledge Based System to Convert Airframe
Geometric Models to Structural Models. Expert Systems in Civil Engineering, (Eds. C.N.
Kostem and M . L . Maher), A S C E , 1986.

39. Gregory, B.L.; Shephard, M.S. The Generation of Airframe Finite Element Models Using
an Expert System. Engineering with Computers 2, 65-77, 1987.

40. Hinton, E . ; Owen, D.R.J. An Introduction to finite element computations. University

College, Swansea, U.K.: Pineridge Press, 1979.

41. Howard, H . C . ; Levitt, R . E . ; Paulson, B . C . ; Pohl, J . G . ; Tatum, C . B . Computer

Integration: Reducing Fragmentation in AEC Industry. A S C E Journal of Computing in
Civil Engineering 3, 18-32, 1989.

42. Hullot, J.-M. ExperlnterfaceBuilder Documentation. Santa Barbara, California, USA: The
ExperTelligence Press, 1987.

43. Jones, M.S.; Saouma, V . E . Prototype Hybrid Expert System for R/C Design. Computing
in Civil Engineering 2,136-143, 1988.

44. Kikuchi, N. Finite element methods in mechanics. Cambridge, Massachusetts, U S A :

Cambridge University Press, 1986.

121
45. Kochan, S. G . Programming in C. Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, USA: Hayden Book
Company, Inc., 1983.

46. Kuipers, B.J. A Frame for Frames: Representing Knowledge for Recognition. In:
Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science (Eds. D . G . Bobrow; A .
Collins). New York, N Y , USA: Academic Press, 151-184, 1985.

47. LaLonde, W.R.; Thomas, D . A . ; Pugh, J.R. An Exemplar Based Smalltalk. Proceedings of
the First Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications
(OOPSLA-86), Portland, Oregon, USA, 322-330, September 1986.

48. Levesque, H.J. A Fundamental Tradeoff in Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.

Proceedings CSCSI-84, London, Ontario, Canada, 141-152,1984.

49. MacNeal, R.H. Standards for Finite Element Test Problems. In: Reliability of Methods for
Engineering Analysis: Proceedings of the First International Conference. (Eds. K.-J. Bathe;
D.R.J. Owen). University College, Swansea, U.K.: Pineridge Press. 335-351,1986.

50. Maher, M . L . HI-RISE and beyond: directions for expert systems in design. Computer
Aided Design 17, 420-427, 1985.

51. Maher, M . L . Expert Systems for Structural Design. Computing in Civil Engineering 1,
270-283, 1987.

52. Maher, M . L . ; Fenves, S.J. HI-RISE: A Knowledge-Based Expert System For The
Preliminary Structural Design Of High Rise Buildings. Report No. R-85-146, Department
of Civil Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U S A , 1985.

53. Mair, W . M . Standards and Quality in Finite Element Practice. In: Reliability of Methods
for Engineering Analysis: Proceedings of the First International Conference. (Eds. K.-J.
Bathe; D.R.J. Owen). University College, Swansea, U.K.: Pineridge Press. 353-362,
1986.

54. M A R C . MARC User Information Manual. M A R C Analysis Research Corporation, Palo

Alto, California, USA, 1976.

122
55. Meyrowitz, N . Intermedia: The Architecture and Construction of an Object-Oriented
Hypermedia System and Applications Framework. Proceedings of the First Conference on
Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA-86),
Portland, Oregon, U S A , 186-201, September 1986.

56. Microsoft. Microsoft® FORTRAN Compiler for the Apple® Macintosh™ User's Guide.
Bellevue, Washington, USA: Microsoft Corporation, 1985.

57. Minsky, M . A Framework for Representing Knowledge. In: The Psychology of Computer
Vision (Ed. P.H. Winston). New York, N Y , USA: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

58. Neuron Data. NExpert Object® Fundamentals: Macintosh™ Version 1.1. Palo Alto,
California, USA: Neuron Data Inc., 1987.

59. Noor, A . K . ; Babuska, I. Quality Assessment and Control of Finite Element Solutions.
Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 3,1-26,1987.

60. Ortolano, L ; Perman, C D . Software for Expert Systems Development. Computing in Civil
Engineering 1, 225-240, 1987.

61. Paek, Y . J . ; Adeli, H . Representation of Structural Design Knowledge in a Symbolic

Language. Computing in Civil Engineering 2, 346-364,1988.

62. Parsaye, K ; Chignell, M . Expert Systems for Experts. New York, N Y , USA: John Wiley
& Sons Inc, 1988.

63. Piersol, K . W . Object-Oriented Spreadsheets: The Analytic Spreadsheet Package.

Proceedings of the First Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages
and Applications (OOPSLA-86), Portland, Oregon, U S A , 385-390, September 1986.

64. Rank, E . ; Babuska, I. An Expert System for the Optimal Mesh Design in the hp-Version of
the Finite Element Method. Numerical Methods in Engineering 24,2087-2106,1987.

65. Rasdorf, W.J.; Salley, G.C. Generative Engineering Databases - Towards Expert Systems.
Computers & Structures 20, 11-15, 1985.

123
66. Rasdorf, W.J.; Wang, T . E . Generic Design Standards Processing in an Expert System
Environment. Computing in Civil Engineering 2, 68-87, 1988.

67. Reddy, J.N. An introduction to the finite element method. New York, N Y , U S A :
McGraw-Hill, 1984.

68. Rehak, D.R. Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Finite Element Program Development.
In: Reliability of Methods for Engineering Analysis: Proceedings of the First International
Conference (Eds. K . - J . Bathe; D.R.J. Owen). University College, Swansea, U . K . :
Pineridge Press, 515-532, 1986.

69. Rehak, D.R.; Howard, H.C. Interfacing expert systems with design databases in integrated
CAD systems. Computer Aided Design 17, 443-454, 1985.

70. Rivlin, J.M.; Hsu, M.B.; Marcal, P.V. Knowledge-based consultation for finite element
analysis. Technical Report AFWAL-TR-80-3069, Flight Dynamics Laboratory (FIBRA),
Wright-Patterson Airforce Base, May, 1980.

71. Rogers, J.L.; Barthelemy, J-F. M . An Expert System for Choosing the Best Combination of
Options in a General Purpose Program for Automated Design Synthesis. Engineering with
Computers 1, 217-227, 1986.

72. Rooney, M.F.; Smith, S.E. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design. Computers &
Structures 16, 279-288, 1983.

73. Ross, C.T.F. Finite element methods in structural mechanics. Chichester, West Sussex,
England: Ellis Horwood Limited, 1985.

74. Schank, R.C.; Abelson, R.P. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. Hillsdale, New
Jersey, U S A : Erlbaum, 1977.

75. Schank, R.C. Dynamic Memory: A theory of reminding and learning in computers and
people. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

76. Schmucker, K. J. Object-Oriented Programming for the Macintosh™. Hasbrouck Heights,

New Jersey, USA: Hayden Book Company, Inc., 1986.

124
77. Schildt, H . Artificial Intelligence Using C. Berkeley, California, U S A : Osborne
McGraw-Hill, 1987.

78. Soh, C.-K.; Soh, A . - K . Example of Intelligent Structural Design System. Computing in
Civil Engineering 2, 329-345, 1988.

79. Sriram, D.; Maher, M . L . ; Fenves, S.J. Knowledge-Based Expert Systems in Structural
Design. Computers & Structures 20, 1-9, 1985.

80. Sriram, D.; Maher, M . L . The Representation and Use of Constraints in Structural Design.
In: Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Problems. Proceedings of the First
International Conference (Eds. D . Sriram; R. Adey). Southampton University, U.K.:
Springer-Verlag, 355-368,1986.

81. Stefik, M.J.; Conway, L . The principled engineering of knowledge. A l Magazine 3(3)
4-16, 1982.

82. Stroustrup, B. The C++ Programming Language. Reading, Massachusetts, U S A :

Addison-Wesley, 1986.

83. Tarnow, N . Das Expertensystem GENIUS: Interaktive Steuerung nichtlinearer,

strukturmechanischer Losungsalgorithmen im Finite-Element-Programm PCFEAP.
Diplomarbeit, Institut fiir Baumechanik und Numerische Mechanik, Universitat Hannover,
West Germany, 1987.

84. Taig, I.C. Expert Aids to Finite Element System Applications. In: Applications of Artificial
Intelligence in Engineering Problems. Proceedings of the First International Conference
(Eds. D . Sriram; R. Adey). Southampton University, U.K.: Springer-Verlag, 759-770,
1986.

85. Tello, E. The Languages of Al Research. PC Magazine, April 16, 1985.

86. THINK. MORE™ User's Manual. Bedford, Massachusetts, USA: Symantec Corporation,
THINK Technologies Division, 1988.

125
87. THINK. THINK's LightspeedC™ User's Manual. Bedford, Massachusetts, U S A :
Symantec Corporation, THINK Technologies Division, 1988.

88. THINK. THINK's Lightspeed Pascal™ User's Manual. Bedford, Massachusetts, USA:
Symantec Corporation, THINK Technologies Division, 1988.

89. Turing, A . Computing machinery and intelligence. In Computers and Thought (Eds. E .
Feigenbaum; J. Feldman). New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill, 1-35, 1963.

90. Turkiyyah, G . M . ; Fenves S.J. Knowledge-Based Analysis of Structural Systems. In:

Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Applications of Artificial
Intelligence in Engineering, Boston, USA, August 1987.

91. Ullman, D . G . ; Dietterich, T.A. Mechanical Design Methodology: Implications on Future

Developments of Computer-Aided Design and Knowledge-Based Systems. Engineering
with Computers 2, 21-29, 1987.

92. van Melle, W . A Domain-Independent Production-Rule System for Consultation Programs.

Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-79),
923-925, Tokyo, Japan, August 1979.

93. Wahlster, W . Cooperative Access Systems. In: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: Towards

Practical Application (Eds. T. Bernold; G . Albers), Elsevier Science Publishers B . V .
(North-Holland), 33-45, 1985.

94. Waterman, D . A . A Guide to Expert Systems. Reading, Massachusetts, U S A :

Addison-Wesley, 1986.

95. Weiss, S.; Kulikowski, C . EXPERT: A System for Developing Consultation Models.
Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-79),
Tokyo, Japan, 942-947, 1979.

96. Weiss, S.; Kulikowski, C ; Apte C ; Uschold, M . ; Patchett, J.; Brigham, R.; Spitzer, B.
Building Expert Systems for Controlling Complex Programs. Proceedings of the Second
National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-82), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA,
322-326, August 1982.

126
97. Wigan, M.R. Engineering Tools for Building Knowledge-Based Systems on Microsystems.
Microcomputers in Civil Engineering 1,52-68, 1986.

98. Wilson, E.L.; Itoh, T. Expert SAP: A Computer Program for Adaptive Mesh Refinement in
Finite Element Analysis. In: Reliability of Methods for Engineering Analysis: Proceedings
of the First International Conference (Eds. K.-J. Bathe; D.R.J. Owen). University College,
Swansea, U.K.: Pineridge Press, 85-102, 1986.

99. Winograd, T. Frame Representations and the Declarative/Procedural Controversy. In:

Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science (Eds. D . G . Bobrow; A .
Collins). New York, N Y , USA: Academic Press, 185-210, 1975.

100. Winston, P.H. Artificial Intelligence. Second Edition. Reading, Massachusetts, U S A :

Addison-Wesley, 1984.

101. Winston, P.H.; Horn, B.K.P. LISP. Second Edition. Reading, Massachusetts, U S A :
Addison-Wesley, 1984.

102. Zienkiewicz, O . C . The finite element method. Third Edition. New York, N Y , USA:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1977.

103. Zienkiewicz, O . C ; Zhu, J.Z. A Simple Error Estimator and Adaptive Procedure for
Practical Engineering Analysis. Numerical Methods in Engineering 24, 337-357,1987.

127
Appendix A: The Finite Element Formulation
Miriirnization of the total potential energy functional for an elastic continuum, by invoking its

stationarity, is considered the foundation of the finite element method [67]. An equivalent

approach, known as the principle of virtual displacements, is employ

formulation. Equilibrium equations are established for the linear solution of a general

three-dimensional body subjected to body forces, surface tractions, and concentrated forces.

A . 1 . General Three-Dimensional Body

The body shown in Fig. A . l . is subjected to the following forces:

rf i Jx "K '
Jx
Jy ; f s
= f s
; F'= K
Jy
. Jz . . Jz . X .

128
The strains corresponding to U are:

e
i xx
£
^yr zz e
?XY YYZ YZX ] 3)

The stresses corresponding to e are:

^ ~ \^XX ^YY ^2Z ^XY *YZ Z Y ] T

(A 4)

A . 2 . Total Potential Energy Functional

If the total energy of an isolated system remains constant, the system is known as "conservative",

and all work done is stored as strain energy which is completely recoverable on the removal of the

loads [18]. These conditions apply for problems in linear elasticity, and will be employed here.

The set of state variables for which the functional n(U ...,U )
lt n is a minimum defines a

solution in this context [7]. The conditions required to obtain the state variables are:

5/7=0 or ^J-=° i=l...,n (A 5)

JJ=Zl-W (A 6)

IJ=total potential energy of the system

11=strain energy of the system

W/= total potential energy of the loads

Assuming a linear elastic continuum, the total potential energy of the body in Fig A . l . is:

77 = \ \z x dV - Ju f dV
T 7 B
- \\J ( dS - £ U * F"
S s
(A 7)

The stresses may berelatedto the strains and to the initial stresses:

x = Ce + T ' 04 8)

129
A.3. Principle of Virtual Displacements

Invoking the stationarity of 77 and observing the symmetry of C , the principle of virtual

displacements may be obtained:

Je r
C e dV =\\?f dV
B
+ JlJ f dS
5 s
- \ f %' dV +XTJ' F* (A 9)

The displacements within each element are assumed to be related to the global displacement vector

by a shape function matrix. This is shown here in terms of global coordinates; however, local

coordinate systems may be employed in most computations followed by subsequent

transformation.

u ° U , y , z) = K"(x,
(
y , z) U (A 10)

The strains within each element are obtained by application of a differential operator to the shape

function matrix to produce the B matrix.

e '\x, y, ) = B ° U , y,z)l)
(
Z
(
(A 11)

The principle of virtual displacements can be written as a summation over all elements in the body:

+ IJ(0U' ° f ' ^ *+ XlJ ' F'

( r S( ) ( ) , r
(A 12)

Substitution of the shape function and strain-displacement relationships for each element yields:

{XJ .N"V"W"}(

—T

2j
A A

u ( ,B C B dV u =u V,»" ' "

S
} (A 13,

-{ZJ\B">'"" r

+F

130
A . 4 . Equilibrium Equations
Imposition of unit virtual displacements to all nodal components, and denoting the nodal

displacements from now on as U gives the linear equilibrium equations:

KU = R (A 14)

where:

R=R B + R - Rj + Rc
s (A 15)

The global stiffness matrix comes from an assemblage of element stiffnesses:

.K = I J B ' V V ' W " (A 16)

(«)
K

The element body forces are:

*.=XJ,.N'"V"W" M«)
* V
(')

The surface tractions are:

R^I^N^f^V 0
(A 18)

The loads due to initial stresses are:

R,=XJ B ° i
(
f ( ,
^ W
(A 19)

The concentrated loads are:

R= F
C (A 20)

131
Appendix B: Isoparametric Finite Elements
A group of finite elements for numerical analysis known as "isoparametric" are contained in the

S N A P library. This name signifies that the element geometry and the element displacements are

interpolated using the same parametric form [67]. The computational advantages of numerically

integrated finite elements [102] are demonstrated by formulation of the shape functions and

derivatives for several element types. Numerical integration formulae are given for general

problems based on Gauss-Legendre quadrature.

B.l.The Isoparametric Concept

Fig. B . l . Coordinate Transformation [67].

The geometrical transformation of a master element shown in Fig. B . l is based on the description

of the coordinates of any point (x,y) in that element in terms of the shape functions (Nj) and the

values of the nodal coordinates (jtj-j,-). This means that one advantage of isoparametric elements

is the ability to provide an accurate description of irregular domains (curved boundaries).

132
 Written as a summation, the geometrical transformation is:

i= 1

If the same transformation is used to evaluate the displacements within the element, the same

shape function routines may be applied to obtain u and v.

»
« = I > . - N . - ( £ . »7) v = 5 > . A T ( £ , TJ) (82)
1-1 1-1

B.2. Shape Functions a n d Derivatives

Computation of the strain-displacement matrix B requires investigation into the relationship

between the natural andrealcoordinate systems. Application of the chain rule for differentiation to

the shape functions yields:

dN. 'dN.
~dx
dN. dN.
LW"J dr\ drj ~df
'dV.
~dx~
dN.

dN.
~dx
= J dN. (B 3 )

dy

where: J is called the Jacobian matrix.

133
 The inverse relationship between these shape function derivatives is obtained with some

simple matrix algebra. If the determinant of the Jacobian is non-zero, inversion is performed as

follows:

T - A* T r TI dx & dx . n
(B 4)
J =detU] =— -——*o w

r dy dy ]

/
1
an
dx dx
% -

i = 1 i = 1

- 2,— x.. t^x

• -1

r r (B 5 )
11 12

r r
21 22 J L
B.3. Strain-Displacement Matrix Computation
The desired strain-displacement relationship may be derived from:

".x
10 0 0 u
0 0 0 1 (Z? 6)
V.x
0 1 1 0
v
•yJ

This may now be written in terms of the natural coordinates:

^2 0 0 " u
10 0 0
r0
0 0 u
e = 0 0 0 1 < (B 7 )
r
0 ^2 V
0 1 1 0 n
0 0 ^21 r
22.

134
 Multiplying the first two matrices yields:

0 0 "

e = 0 0 (B 8)
J..

Finally, the B matrix may be computed by differentiating the shape functions for the given

element to obtain the strain as a function of the nodal displacements.

0 0 .. N , 0
r J.. ^2 0
oi 0 0 0
e = 0 0 ^22
0 0 0 f
W (B9)
J
N

.^21 ^2
0 0 0
"2., •

e = Bu (5 10)

B.4. Stiffness Matrix Computation

Since B was not assembled as a function of the natural coordinates over the element domain,

stiffness matrix integration cannot be performed in advance. The following integral must be

evaluated using a numerical technique. Limits are shown for a rectangular domain; however, the

same concepts may be applied to triangular domains.

K= \JB CBtdxdy
T

i i

= \\B t
CBtJd^dr]
-1-1
n n

(B 11)
i = ly = 1
where: 0 = B C BtJ
T
is evaluated at specific T\- ) locations, and
W , Wj are constant weighting factors.
t

The constitutive matrix C , which is a symmetrical contracted version of E , may be derived for

problems in two dimensions for either plane stress or plane strain conditions [44]. These two

matrices may be computed given values for Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio.

135
 1 v 0
v 1 0
c= V
0 0 1^2-
plane stress

(B 12)
V
1 0
1- v
E(l-v) v
C = 1 0 plane strain
(1+ v)(l-2u) 1- u
1- 2v
0 0
2(1- t »

B.5. N u m e r i c a l Integration

Among the alternative integration techniques, either Newton-Cotes or Gauss-Legendre quadrature

are typically chosen for finite element applications. The primary difference between these two

techniques is in the spacing of the integration points. Newton-Cotes procedures specify a set of

predetermined points (usually at equal spacing), from which a set of weight factors are determined

to rriiriirnise the integration error. Conversely, Gauss-Legendre procedures compute a set of points

and weight factors which yield the value of the integral exactly for a given polynomial order. The

Gauss-Legendre technique has certain advantages over the Newton-Cotes technique [67,7], so it

will be used in this context.

Integration in one-dimension may be performed using the data given in Table B . l .

Integration in two dimensions over a rectangular domain is performed by forming a product of the

one-dimensional formulae as shown in Table B.2. Integration over a triangular domain is slightly

more complicated, with the resulting sample points and weight factors shown in Table B.3.

Table B . l . Gauss-Legendre sampling points and weights.

Number of Locations of points Weight factors

points n w
i

1 0.00000 00000 000 2.00000 00000 000

2 ±0.57735 02691 896 1.00000 00000 000

3 ±0.77459 66692 415 0.55555 55555 556

0.00000 00000 000 0.88888 88888 889

4 ±0.86113 63115 941 0.34785 48451 375

±0.33998 10435 849 0.65214 51548 625

136
Table B.2. Gauss-Legendre numerical integration over rectangular domains.

Integration Accuracy Geometry

order n x n 2n-l

1 x 1

4 = -0.577 4 = 0.577.

2x2
r| =0.577... -4-

T| =-0.577... -o—
i

4 = -0.774... 4 = 0.774...
i
3x3 ri = 0.774.. . ii
T|=0.0 4-
i
i
i
T| = -0.774... —o—
—i—

4 = -0.861. 4 = 0.861...
n = 0.861..
i i
4x4 TI = 0.339... — —| <>•- pi — < ^i - -
r
T| =-0.339... -4--*
I I I I

ri =-0.861... -K-^-r-H

The accuracy of integration is specified by the order of polynomial which is integrated exactly
using a given set of points and weight factors. A typical example is the 2x2 rectangular pattern.
This has an accuracy of order 3, which means that it will correctly evaluate an integral with cubic
and lower order terms. The problem is then to determine the order of polynomial being integrated
for a given stiffness matrix, and to select the appropriate sample points and weight factors.

137
Table B.3. Gauss-Legendre numerical integration over triangular domains.

Integration Locations of points Weight factors Geometry

order & W,
Accuracy

X.
\ \
1-point Cj= 0 . 3 3 3 3 3 33333 333 Wj = 0 . 5 0 0 0 0 00000 000 \ X
\ \
\ x
\ x
1

T|
C,= 0.16666 66666 667
W!=0.16666 66666 667
C = 0.66666 66666 667 \.
\ \
2

3-point \ X

W =w,
2 ^2= 2- ^2 =
c c
l
2

W 3 = W l
i A ^ \
S = 1> l3=
3
C T C
2

C[= 0 . 1 0 1 2 8 65073 235

C = 0.79742
2 69853 531 W,=0.06296 95902 724
C = 0.47014 20641 051
7-point 3
W =0.06619
2 70763 943
C = 0 . 0 5 9 7 1 58717 898

7<\
4
W =0.11250
3 00000 000
5 C = 0.33333 33333 333
w
s

1= W l

W 2 = W l

^ 2 = C , T | = Cj
W
2 2

3 = W l

^3 = 1 ' ^3= ° 2
C

W =w4 2

^4=C . T| = C
3 4 4
W =w5 2

W =w 6 2

^6=C . T| = C
4 6 3
W =w7 3

^7 = %= c 5

138
The elements of the shape function matrix N are given by:
^=7(1-0(1- V)
/V =i(l+
2 TI)
JV, = (1 + O d +
7 n)

N = {(1-
4 0(1+ TJ)

F i g . B.3. Typical Shape Function for the Four-Node Rectangular Element [40].

139
B.7. Eight-Node Rectangular Element

X, u

F i g . B.4. Eight-Node Rectangular Element.

The elements of the shape function matrix N are given by:

N = - (l+
2
1
1 Od- i?)d- § + r?)
iv =-id+ O d + n ) d - £ - n)
3

iV = - ^ ( l - £ ) d + » ? ) ( ! + § - V)
4

iV = i ( l - £ ) ( 1 - TJ)
5
2

N =i(l+ 6 r/ )
2

N =|(l- 7 «* )(1 +
2

N = 7(l-
8 O d - ^)

Derivatives of these shape functions with respect to the natural coordinates are:
77)(2£ + 77) \„ = i(l-
:
^(277 +

TJ)(2§ - r?)
" a . , = j ( l + £)(277 - £ )
N
^ = 7(1 + r;)(2^ + 77) = 7(1 + |)(2T7 +

7(1+ 7 j ) ( 2 £ - 77) = 7(1-0(277 - 0

N
s.t =
id - n) 2
= -77(1+0

= i d " «')
- i d - 77 ) 2 = -77(1- 0

140
Fig. B.5. Typical Comer Node Shape Function for the Eight-Node Rectangular Element [40].

Fig. B.6. Typical Midside Node Shape Function for the Eight-Node Rectangular Element [40].

141
F i g . B.7. Three-Node Triangular Element.

The elements of the shape function matrix N are given by:

N, = 1 - £ - 77

N =ri
3

Derivatives of these shape functions with respect to the natural coordinates are:

F i g . B.8. Typical Shape Function for the Three-Node Triangular Element [40].

142
B.9. Six-Node Triangular Element

The elements of the shape function matrix N are given by:

N l = 2 ? -
c
N = 3 2T] - 2

N =4fr
5

N =4CV
6

where: £ =
(i
Derivatives of these shape functions with respect to the natural coordinates are:
TVj ^ = -3 + 4 £ + 477 „ = -3 + 477 + 4 £

^2.« = ^ - l N „= 02

7V =0 3 ? ^ . , = 477 - 1

N ^ = 4 ( 1 - 2 ^ - 77)
4 N , , = -4^
4

N 5 > 5 = 477 *5,„=4$

A^ 6 | = -477 N , , = 4 ( 1 - £ - 277 )
6

143
F i g . B.10. Typical Comer Node Shape Function for the Six-Node Triangular Element [40].

F i g . B . l l . Typical Midside Node Shape Function for the Six-Node Triangular Element [40].

B . 1 0 . Determination of Integration Order

Convergence to the correct solution will occur as the mesh of numerically integrated elements is

refined if the numerical integration scheme used is sufficient to evaluate the volume of the element

exactly [67]. This reasoning is linked to the energy functional definition [102]. There are dangers

associated with low-order integration techniques since they can lead to zero-energy modes and

singular stiffness matrices, so higher order techniques may be used in practice [73]. The minimum

orders of Gauss-Legendre integration to be used are as shown in Table B.4.

Table B.4. Minimum Order of Integration used for Various Elements.

Element Pattern Accuracy
4-Node rectangle lxl 1
8-Node rectangle 2x2 3
3-Node triangle 1-point 1
6-Node triangle 3-point 2

144
 Forde, B.W.R.; Stiemer, S.F.
Improved Arc-Length Orthogonality Methods for Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis
Computers & Structures 27, 625-630, 1987.

Forde, B.W.R.
Iteration Procedures for Sudden Local Alteration of Structural Stiffness
Mitteilung 6, Institut fur Baustatik der Universitat Stuttgart,
(Ed. Professor Dr.-Ing. E . Ramm), Stuttgart, 1986.

Stiemer, S.F.; Forde, B.W.R.

Computer-Aided Design Evaluation
Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computer-Aided Production Engineering,
Edinburgh, Scotland, 2-4 April 1986.

Stiemer, S.F.; Forde, B.W.R.

Design Evaluation Utilizing Flexible Estimation and
Multiple Linear Regression Analysis by Micro-Computers
Proceedings of the 10th Canadian Congress of Applied Mechanics (CANCAM-85), London,
Ontario, Canada, 2-7 June 1985.

Forde, B.W.R.; Stiemer, S.F.

Steel Construction Evaluation by MLR Strategies

A S C E Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, June 1985.

Stiemer, S.F.; Forde, B.W.R.

Reduction of Structural Steel Fabrication Costs by Multiple Linear Regression Strategies
Engineering Digest (Engineering Journal of the Canadian Engineering Publications Ltd.,
Toronto), 31, 18-22, February 1985.
Forde, B.W.R.; Leung, Y.C.; Stiemer, S.F.
Computer-Aided Design Evaluation of Steel Structures
Proceedings of the 12th Congress of the International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering (IABSE), Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 3-7 September 1984.

AWARDS:
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), 1983-1988.
Deutscher Akademischer Austauchdienst (DAAD) Stipendium, 1985-1986.
Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule Zurich (ETH) Stipendium, 1985-1986.
Alexander Lorraine Carruthers Scholarship in Engineering, 1982-1983.
MacKenzie Swan Memorial Scholarship, 1981-1982.