EngngApplic.Artif. lntell. Vol.7, No. 4, pp.

455-459, 1994
Copyright© 1994ElsevierScienceLtd
Pergamon Printed in GreatBritain. All rights reserved
0952-1976(94)00017--4 0952-1976/94$7.00+ 0.00

Brief Paper
An Expert System for Identifying Steels and Cast Irons
J. L . P E R E Z D E L A C R U Z
Universidad de M~ilaga, Spain

M . J. M A R T I
Universidad de Mfilaga, Spain

R. CONEJO
Universidad de M~ilaga, Spain

R. MORALES-BUENO
Universidad de M~ilaga, Spain

T, FERNANDEZ
Universidad de M~ilaga, Spain
(Received November 1993; in revised form February 1994)

This paper presents an application of Knowledge Engineering techniques to the problem of identifying
a steel or cast iron from a microphotograph. The essential aim of the implemented system is to help
metallography students in the task of learning the concepts relevant for identifying and classifying
steels and cast irons. The system has been developed and implemented by means of Knowledge
Engineering tools, and all the goals set up at the beginning of the project have been reached.

Keywords: Expert system, metallography, steel, cast iron, alloy, classification, teaching.

1. INTRODUCTION interaction with a knowledge-based system can facili-

tate the acquisition of domain knowledge for a novice.
The task of identifying a type of steel or cast iron either
That is the reason why an interdisciplinary team was
from its composition and thermal treatments, or from a
created, made up of metallographical experts and
microphotograph, is usually an important part of
computer scientists, to develop an expert system for
college metallography courses. ~'2 In fact, this task is of
such a task.
great practical importance, since in this way it is poss-
In the following section of this paper, the main
ible to foresee and explain the behaviour of an alloy
features of the domain and the target task will be
without resorting to costly testing.
presented. In Section 3, methodological aspects will be
Typically, a student works through many examples of
discussed, as well as the knowledge elicitation process,
microphotographs during half a semester to reach a
and in Section 4 the implemented system A C E so
certain degree of skill in this domain. Some examples
developed will be described. Finally, in Section 5 some
are printed in textbooks, but the best way to become
conclusions will be drawn from the work done.
familiar with them is by looking at a lot of samples
using a metallographical microscope. It is somewhat
difficult for the average student to grasp the knowledge 2. IDENTIFICATION OF STEELS AND CAST
needed to perform the identification task. On the other IRONS
hand, it is widely held that expert system technology
can be very useful for instructional tasks; e.g. the The essential metallographical problem addressed by
this project is the determination of the mechanical
features (breaking stress, resilience, Young module,
Correspondence should be sent to: Dr J. L. Perez de la Cruz,
Departmento Lenguajes y Ciencias de la Computacion, etc.) of an iron-carbon ( F e - C ) alloy without perform-
Universidad de M(daga, Plaza del Ejido, 29013 Malaga, Spain. ing any costly or destructive tests. An initial analysis
455
456 J.L. PEREZ DE LA CRUZ et al.: IDENTIFYINGSTEEL AND CASTIRON
microphotograph student-user
IY <
Fig. 1. ACE basic identificationprocedure.
showed that this problem is posed in two very different
ways.
First, there are identification problems arising from
the knowledge of the alloy's composition, the tempera-
ture reached in the alloying process, the rate of cooling,
etc. Since all the data are well structured and the
relationship between them and the mechanical proper-
ties is available in tables and abaci, this problem could
be solved by means of conventional programming tech-
niques. However, it was integrated with the solution to
the other problem in the same expert system.
The more interesting aspects of the identification
process arise from the other statement of the problem,
namely when the problem is to identify the structural
components shown in a microphotograph, and deter-
mine the mechanical properties of the alloy from the
knowledge of these components. A microphotograph is
a photograph obtained by means of a metallographical
microscope (magnification ×50 to × 1000). A sample of
the alloy is polished and treated with a reactive, and the
surface is displayed or photographed. Usually the
analysis starts by observing low-magnification (50-100)
pictures. From these pictures, the expert is able to
identify which components are present and which kind
of Fe-C alloy is the one photographed. The properties
of the alloy are then inferred from the conceptual,
explicit metallographical knowledge.
The problem is not a trivial one: there are many
components possibly appearing in the same micro-
photograph, e.g. ferrite, cementite, perlite, austenite,
ledeburite, bainite, graphite flakes, etc. Even more, a
single component can look very different in different
microphotographs. A review of the situation shows
that the problem is currently solved by human experts
in a heuristic fashion. To sum up, the subproblems
that compose the target task are the following:
t ,eatures
I
expert system
--given the centesimal composition and the pro-
cess followed, determine the mechanical proper-
ties of the alloy. This problem can be solved in a
number of different ways. For example, a simple
rule-based system could perform the task;
--given the structural components of the alloy,
determine its mechanical properties. The solu-
tion is found in a similar way;
--given a microphotograph, determine the struc-
tural components of the alloy. This problem
cannot be addressed by conventional program-
ming techniques, and it is the more interesting
problem from the artificial intelligence point of
view. Therefore, the rest of the paper will be
focused upon it.
Since the system's ultimate goal is a didactic one, the
system must simulate the behaviour of a human expert
when solving these kinds of problems. That is the main
reason why only heuristic techniques have been
selected to develop and implement the system. Of
course, this does not mean that mathematical classifica-
tion techniques are not useful to carry out the steel and
cast iron identification, even if the task is very complex.
The system that was finally selected for development is
shown in Fig. 1, and can be specified as follows:
- - a novice human user (the student taking the
course) must extract the more relevant features
from the microphotograph,
- - a n expert system asks the user about the features
in the microphotograph, processes the answers
and generates a final output identifying the
alloy.
The ultimate goal of the global system (user and
expert system) is to perform a pattern recognition or
 J. L. PEREZ DE LA CRUZ et al.: IDENTIFYINGSTEELAND CASTIRON
identification task. However, a more exact denomina-
tion for the task carried out by the expert system is that
of heuristic classification. In fact, having left the
feature-extraction task to the human user, the remain-
ing problem is a typical heuristic classification problem,
like the one described by Clancey3 or Chandrasekaran/
For this reason, expert-system technology is a good
candidate for the implementation of the system. As
Chandrasekaran4 says, "a large fraction of those expert
systems that have reached some degree of exposure
deal with some form of the classification problem".
Therefore, there are many development and program-
ming tools well suited to this paradigm.
3. METHODOLOGY AND KNOWLEDGE
ELICITATION
The particular features of the problem, given by the
interactions between expert system, student-user and
microphotographical material, required a certain deal
of methodological inquiry finally yielding a suitable
methodology. The stages in the development of the
system were as follows:
(1) Creation and tuning-in of the working team. At
this stage, the required skills and attitudes were shared:
the knowledge engineer, by means of the study of the
relevant bibliography ~'2 and informal interviews with
the expert, acquired the basic terminology and con-
cepts of the domain; on the other hand, the expert--
and client--perceived the basic features and limitations
of current expert-system technology.
(2) Initial specification and definition of the know-
ledge elicitation process. The members of the team
specified the kind of consultation allowed the final user,
and the broad outlines of the elicitation process for
questionsabout
reasoning
questionsabout the mph.
\/
Fig. 2. Knowledgeelicitationin ACE.
457
transferring the knowledge from the expert to the
system.
(3) Prototyping. Some typical cases were selected,
and a first prototype was implemented for solving these
cases. This stage ended with an evaluation of the
performance by the expert.
(4) Prototype refinement. More knowledge was
added in order to solve all the problems in the specified
domain. A global evaluation by the expert was per-
formed.
The more interesting aspect of the methodology was
the knowledge-elicitation process. The most general
technique of interaction between the knowledge engi-
neer and the problem-solving activity is given by the
structured interview, the interactions in the interviews
are shown in Fig. 2. The knowledge engineer (KE)
plays the role of the intended final user, and the expert
(Ex) plays the role of the intended expert system. The
KE can see the microphotograph (MP), but the Ex
cannot. In this way, the Ex asks the KE questions about
the features in the MP until she reaches a positive
identification. The Ex also expresses the intermediate
conclusions she has reached. Besides this basic interac-
tion, the KE has a more direct way to elicit the
knowledge, i.e. by means of questions to the Ex.
However, the only permissible questions are of three
kinds:
(a) WHAT questions, i.e. questions about the
concrete visual meaning of a feature invoked
by the Ex.
(b) WHY questions, i.e. questions concerning the
relevance of an Ex's question.
(c) HOW questions, i.e. questions concerning the
justification of an Ex's conclusion.
feature extraction
.~ identification
458 J . L . PEREZ DE LA CRUZ et al.:
Fig. 3. Example of a microphotograph.
By means of both kinds of interaction the KE elicits
three kinds of knowledge:
(1) Features and concepts needed for the classifi-
cation•
(2) Heuristic rules used for the classification.
(3) Relationship between conceptual features and
visual features in the microphotograph.
All kinds of interactions and knowledge can be found
in the fragments below, corresponding to actual inter-
views between Ex and KE (remarks in italics):
Ex. Choose a microphotograph from the textbook.
KE. Right. (This is the microphotograph of Fig. 3, one
of the simplest problems of this classification do-
main.)
Ex. Are there any bright zones in the microphoto-
graph? (Task 1: the concept or feature "bright
zone" is elicited.)
KE. Yes.
Ex. Are there any dark zones, too?
KE. Could you explain what you mean by "dark
zones"? (Task 3: it looks as ira novice user could
understand "dark zone" in several different ways,
in terms of the visual characteristics of the micro-
photograph.)
Ex. Yes, 1 mean black zones, or perhaps with differ-
ent gray nuances.
KE. Then it's true, there are some dark zones.
KE. What is the difference between the presence or
the absence of these lines? ( W H Y question.)
E x . I am trying to identify which kind of component is
the bright zone: if there is at least one dark line,
there are ferrite grain boundaries, otherwise there
are cementite grain boundaries. (Task 2: a heuris-
tic rule of classification has been elicited.)
By means of these interviews, held over several
months, the required knowledge was elicited, and
finally a consistent and complete set of rules was found
in order to classify the cases posed by the textbook.
Some implementation details are explained in the fol-
lowing section.
IDENTIFYING STEEL AND CAST IRON
4. THE ACE SYSTEM
The final system is made up of 100 rules relating
about 60 parameters. The rules are grouped into 5
frames or subsystems. The system also comprises a
conventional database and a set of stored microphoto-
graphs, added to elucidate some questions. There are
one or two such images for each conceptual feature.
The model of consultation is the classical MYCIN
model; 5 therefore, the tool selected for the implemen-
tation is one based on this model, namely Personal
Consultant Plus from Texas Instrument. 6 The system
runs on a personal computer with at least 1 Mbyte,
colour monitor and V G A card.
The goal of the system is to give a value for the
found-composition parameter. To accomplish this goal,
the sytem identifies the structural components, and to
identify these, the system must search for certain
features in the microphotograph. To sum up, it is a
backward-chaining, goal-driven reasoning process. All
the knowledge is compiled in rules. In example 1, one
of the rules is shown. The rule detects the presence of a
structural component, namely "ferrite grain boundar-
ies", when the sample exhibits certain features like
"presence of bright zones", "presence of dark zones",
"dominance of dark zones", etc.:
IF B R I G H T AND D A R K AND M O R E - D - B AND
B O R D E R AND LINES
THEN Z O N A C = F E R R I T E - B
Example 1
In example 2, a rule is shown that defines a complex
feature, namely the presence of scoriae, in terms of
other observable features:
IF D A R K AND I N T E R I O R
THEN S C O R I A E
Example 2
Notice that no uncertainty handling is needed in this
system. In fact, the classification is always performed
by the human experts in a certain, precise way.
Finally, it is the system user who determines the
presence or absence of observable features (task 3).
The relationship between features and microphoto-
graphs is elucidated by the user interface, a module of
the system specially studied. In fact, taking into ac-
count the didactic goal of the system, the user must be
an active partner in the consultation, and his attention
must be maintained during the session. To achieve this
goal and make clear the meaning of the questions from
the system, an example of the feature asked for is
provided as support with each question. The examples
are fragments of actual microphotographs selected
from those appearing in a textbook. For example, Fig.
4 shows the screen which depicts the concept verbalized
as "dark zones in grains of irregular size". A circle
points to the example of the feature asked for. At the
 J. L. PEREZ DE LA CRUZ et al.: IDENTIFYING STEEL AND CAST IRON 459

end of the session, if the identification of components textbook 1 (about 40) were presented to a coupled
has been partial and there are unidentified components user-expert system, a 100% success was obtained, i.e.
remaining, the system reports this fact to the user, who no microphotograph was misclassified or rejected. The
is invited to start again and pay m o r e attention to the user was the same in all the cases. In fact, the system is
questions. intended to be used during the next few years to
support the teaching of metallographical material.
5. C O N C L U S I O N S It would a p p e a r that some conclusions could be
extrapolated to a broader field. F r o m a basic A I
An artificial intelligence system can be evaluated perspective, the success clearly shows again the possibi-
from three different perspectives, 7 namely those of lities of this technology of structured interview plus
cognitive science, basic A I and applied AI. The work goal-driven consultation to solve these kinds of prob-
presented here falls into the field of applied A I whose lems in a teaching environment, and also in an indus-
criterion is, of course, performance. Regarding this trial one.
criterion, the final evaluation of the system was good.
W h e n all the microphotographs appearing in a
REFERENCES
........................................................................ )

1. Fernandez Gonz~tlez T. Metalografia de aceros y fundiciones.

Universidad de M~laga, Mfilaga (1988).
2. Guliaev A. P. Metalography. Mir, Moscti (1987).
qlP 3. Clancey W. J. Heuristic classification. Artif. Intell. 27, 289-350
(1985).
4. Chandrasekaran B. Expert systems: matching techniques to tasks.
In Artificial Intelligence Application for Business (Edited by
Reitman W.). Ablex, Norwood, N.J. (1986).
5. Buchanan B. G. and Shortliffe E. H. Rule-Based Expert Systems.
Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. (1984).
6. Texas Instrument. Personal Consultant Plus Reference Guide.
Austin, Tex. (1988).
1, t l t l l l ~ I n | [ [ ¢ ~ M I l ~ r l I l o ~ i e t ~ l ~ r ~1 c u r e r e~ lm o l ~ t ~ n d e ~ t t ~ . 7. Bundy A. What kind of field is AI? In The Foundations of
2, P a l m ~ I~rm c o n t t l m a r ~
Aritificial Intelligence (Edited by Partridge, D.). Cambridge
Fig. 4. Example of a help screen. University Press (1990).

AUTHORS' BIOGRAPHIES
J. L. Perez de la Cruz obtained his degrees in Engineering at the Polytechnical University of Madrid. R. Morales-Bueno
graduated in Mathematics at the Complutense University of Madrid and obtained his Ph.D. in Computer Science at the
University of M~laga. R. Conejo is currently performing his doctorla research. They lecture at the Department of Computer
Sciences and Languages, University of Malaga. Their current research focuses onto fuzzy systems and instructional and
engineering applications of AI.
M. J. Marti obtained a M.Sc. in Computer Science at the University of Malaga in 1992. As a graduate student, she cooperated
in the design and development of the knowledge engineering tasks presented in this paper.
T. Fermindez lectures on Metallography at the University of Malaga, where she also leads the Metallography section of the
Institute of Technical Development and Control. She has published two books and several papers on the subject.