Computers in Industry 44 (2001) 1±10

The application of KBE techniques to the FE model

creation of an automotive body structure
Martyn Pinfold*, Craig Chapman
Advanced Technology Centre, Warwick Manufacturing Group, School of Engineering, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
Received 3 February 2000; received in revised form 22 May 2000; accepted 11 August 2000

Abstract

An integral part of the design route for an automotive body structure is the analysis of it using ®nite element (FE)
techniques. The creation of a model for the FE analysis of such a structure is a very time consuming process. However, the
geometry, FE mesh and boundary conditions for the analysis are generically the same each time no matter the size or type of
the vehicle. This paper describes the design analysis response tool (DART) created to investigate the application of knowledge
based engineering (KBE) techniques for the automation of the FE model creation process for such a structure. # 2001 Elsevier
Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Finite element analysis; Mesh generation; Knowledge based engineering; Automotive body structure

1. Introduction automotive structure consisting of the underlying

Most authors (e.g. [1±3]), agree that the most time
consuming part of undertaking a ®nite element (FE)
analysis is the creation of the analysis model. This
usually involves ®rst the transfer of the model from a
computer aided design (CAD) system into the analysis
system and then the simpli®cation of the geometry to
remove some of the minute detail created. As Jones
et al. [3] state the geometric model created in a CAD
system can be incoherent and ambiguous and ``may
require signi®cant cleaning and modi®cation in pre-
paration for meshing and analysis''. To avoid these
problems analysts sometimes create their own model
thus, duplicating data [3,4].
This paper describes the design analysis response
tool (DART) created to aid in the analysis of an
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.k.pinfold@warwick.ac.uk (M. Pinfold).
body structure made up of the body panels, chassis
and structural members. An integral part of the design
route for such structures is the analysis of them using
FE techniques. The creation of a model for the FE
analysis of such structures is a very time consuming
process that can currently take up to 15 man weeks of
effort. However, the geometry, FE mesh and boundary
conditions for the analysis are generically the same
each time no matter the size or type of the vehicle. The
DART system uses knowledge based engineering
(KBE) techniques to automate the FE model creation
process. A rule base concerning the creation of ®rst the
geometry of the vehicle structure and then from this a
simpli®ed model for mesh generation, and then ®nally
the generation of the FE mesh itself has been devel-
oped as a part of the KBE program.
With the use of the DART system it has been
demonstrated that the time taken to create the analysis
model can potentially be reduced from weeks to

0166-3615/01/$ ± see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 6 - 3 6 1 5 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 7 9 - 8
2 M. Pinfold, C. Chapman / Computers in Industry 44 (2001) 1±10
minutes. This would allow engineers to try more
structural combinations in a greatly reduced period
of time and allow them to respond much more quickly
to potential design changes imposed by other depart-
ments. As the models are all created from a uni®ed
model description duplication of data is eliminated.
2. Knowledge based engineering (KBE)
Unlike traditional computer aided design, KBE
systems can capture the intent behind the product
design by representing the `why' and `how' of a
design, in addition to the `what' of a design [5,6].
The geometric description is only one piece of infor-
mation about the total product model. The focus of
KBE is to provide an informationally complete
description or representation of a design as well as
access to external databases. The knowledge based
engineering environment is therefore, a framework for
capturing and de®ning the process of design creation.
The inputs to the KBE model contain geometric and
non-geometric attributes which can include design
speci®cations, design practices, engineers expertise,
material properties and the boundary conditions for
structural analysis. When given a set of inputs, the
KBE model can use the knowledge and rules to create
an instance of a design (note that readers requiring
more information regarding KBE should see, for
example [7,8]). This can then be modi®ed by changing
the input parameters to produce very quickly a new
instance of the design which allows for a signi®cant
increase in engineering productivity [5,6]. Hence
reduction in design cycle time through using a KBE
system is achieved through the complete automation
of any tedious, time consuming, error prone and
repetitive tasks [5,6]. In addition, the model can be
made to run external programs, such as ®nite element
analysis [6]. A KBE system therefore, allows for the
rapid evaluation of design alternatives and the inte-
gration of islands of technology.
Development of a KBE application requires a lot of
up front investment in time and effort to gather knowl-
edge, rules, dependencies and constraints that are
applicable to a family of parts. However, once this
information has been acquired and incorporated into
the model, it can then be used repeatedly to create new
designs [5,6]. Due to this initial investment, KBE
applications have been aimed at routine and variant
designs for which the initial cost and time investment
can be justi®ed.
The method of creating models is very similar in
most commercial KBE systems. The adaptive model-
ling language (AML) from TechnoSoft [9] has been
used within this project and has the ability to create
objects and write rules from templates, see Fig. 1 for a
layout of the AML knowledge based engineering
environment.
2.1. KBE applied to structural analysis
The goal of structural analysis is to understand the
physical response of structural systems when sub-
jected to loads. The geometry used for the creation
of the ®nite element mesh is, in general an approx-
imation of the model geometry. The pre-processing
for an analysis, which includes the simpli®cation of
the CAD geometry to make it suitable for analysis and
the generation of the FE mesh is often the most time
consuming and costly part of undertaking an analysis.
Desaleux and Fouet [10] state that the costs for the
creation of an FE mesh represent about 80% of the
total analysis cost. Most of this time is spent in
correcting CAD model geometry problems [11].
Whilst many FE pre-processors will automatically
create an FE mesh, such automatic creation still
requires data such as mesh density, selection of ele-
ments, and the position and type of boundary condi-
tions to be applied. However, if the same generic
problem is to be analysed over and over again time
can be saved in the creation of the mesh if the rules
regarding it are created once and then referred to. The
simpli®cation of the CAD geometry to facilitate mesh
generation can be regarded in a similar manner and
therefore, meets all the criteria for the application of
knowledge based engineering technology [12,13].
From the available literature (for example [1,12±
18]) it can be seen that whilst there are many exam-
ples, or frameworks, discussed for the linking of KBE
or expert systems to structural analysis, these are often
done in two different systems. The output from the
KBE system is a set of geometry, maybe with attached
parameters, which will guide the creation of an FE
mesh in another software package. In addition, it is
clear from the literature that the creation of the FE
mesh is not seen as a major part of work. More time
 M. Pinfold, C. Chapman / Computers in Industry 44 (2001) 1±10
Fig. 1. The AML knowledge based engineering environment.
and effort would appear to be spent upon optimising
the FE mesh or upon optimising the design.
What is described in this paper is an example where
the geometry creation and FE mesh generation are
both done in the same system, which then outputs the
data in a format suitable for the analysis package.
Whilst what is proposed here is essentially a much
simpler problem to be addressed than those discussed
in most of the literature it is felt that this area of linking
KBE and FE should not be ignored if only for the
potential time savings achievable for the FE mesh
generation.
3. The DART system
The DART application is designed to allow the
engineer to interact through a set of menus and
graphical interface tools, to specify the requirements
of the desired product to rapidly create an automotive
structure with panelling in a three dimensional solid/
surface representation. The model can be created in a
non-structured way with information, such as material
data, added at any point in the modelling session.
Structure sub-parts such as beams, joints and panels
can be modi®ed in real time without consideration of
3
the analysis requirements. At any point within the
design session the engineer has the ability to simplify
the design model automatically for input to analysis.
The concept structure can be veri®ed at any point
within the session with respect to manufacturability,
styling and packaging con¯icts. The knowledge base,
which contains the design rules, is used to construct
the product within the imposed constraints.
The model created in DART breaks down into ®ve
main parts: the style, packaging, structural members,
joints and panels. These parts can then be decomposed
further, each stage of decomposition varying the
intelligence of the objects such as joints. For example,
primitive objects might only know how to draw
themselves, whereas higher level objects will use
the knowledge base to make speci®c decisions regard-
ing their shape, relationships, manufacturing process
and cost. The collection of the knowledge base for
DART from the engineers was not necessarily
straightforward as many different departments had
to be consulted as the knowledge base was fragmented
and largely based on past experience. Thus, the knowl-
edge required often existed as `rules of thumb' with
the engineers not realising that this constituted the
design rules. In addition, in the case of the vehicle
structure rules are not only required for mesh genera-
4 M. Pinfold, C. Chapman / Computers in Industry 44 (2001) 1±10
tion but also for the creation of the geometry. This is
not easy for such a complex structure, and is a very
large problem to undertake. Thus, the geometry cre-
ated for the body structure was that of a relatively
simple space-frame type of construction and used to
demonstrate the feasibility of the approach and the use
of KBE technology for this type of application.
The ®rst step in the creation of DART was to create
a conceptual product model. The conceptual product
model can be thought of as a schematic of the com-
pleted system. A particular design instance of a pro-
duct model is described by a product model tree. This
structure describes the hierarchical relationships
between the various components (parts and processes)
of the model. The model also determines the methods
of how the objects will obtain the correct information,
in order to carry out their speci®c tasks and as to the
information they will provide to other objects. This
hierarchical abstraction means the decomposition of
information into levels of increasing detail [19]. The
decisions made by the system in creating a model are
based on the user inputs and the knowledge bases. The
system is extended by increasing the part library, and
by expanding the object class de®nitions. The stages
that the user goes through in the DART system are
described in the following sections.
3.1. Detailed geometry creation
The initial input to the DART system is the vehicle
style in terms of a vehicle outer surface de®nition,
Fig. 2. Frame structure around a vehicle style model.
which forms the outer working constraint to which the
structural package must adhere to. ``No-go'' areas are
de®ned by the importing of packaging objects, for
example, mannequins and powertrain components.
The input to the DART system could take many forms
as follows.
 Imported data via standard formats such as IGES.
 The specification of structured point data sets,
defining the vehicle outer surfaces.
 The import of models via native CAD database
formats.
 The import of previously stored models retrieved
from the object database.
Alternatively, if a model was not available at this
level of concept design the system allows the engineer
to sketch his own space frame type of vehicle structure
by creating the beams, joints and panels in the form of
solid models, without reference to an initial outer
surface de®nition.
3.2. Structure development Ð members, panels and
joints
At this point the body structure in terms of the
structural members, the panels and joints are created
taking into account the packaging `no-go' areas such
as the engine and passenger compartment. Figs. 2 and
3 show the build up of frame structures using ``adap-
tive beam'' objects and automatic ``cast node joint''
objects for two different vehicle styles. Fig. 4 shows
 M. Pinfold, C. Chapman / Computers in Industry 44 (2001) 1±10
Fig. 3. Frame structure around an alternative vehicle style model.
the DART system main menu form and Fig. 5 shows a
beam creation interface. Fig. 6 shows an example of
the product model tree.
The user can edit, if necessary, any of the member
or panel details or positions. From a standard library of
existing designs general stiffness targets for each
member can be obtained based on the overall size
of vehicle being analysed. The DART system will
automatically check the member geometries and
materials against the required stiffness targets and
make alterations if necessary. This is a very quick
®rst shot analysis to ensure that the vehicle being
designed is realistic. In addition, if relevant manufac-
turing information is stored within the database, and
the user selects a particular type of material and
manufacturing method, the system will highlight
any case where the rules are broken. For example,
if the radius of curvature is too small to allow the
component to be manufactured using the speci®ed
method or material.
The model created at this stage in the DART system
is a complete solid model from which the surfaces can
Fig. 4. Main DART menu.
5
Fig. 5. Beam creation interface.
be extracted. This model can be used to provide many
different types of information as non-geometric as
well as geometric information can be contained within
the KBE database. The model could be used to provide
manufacturing information or costing information for
example, and can be output through neutral ®le for-
mats to external systems. However, the aim of the
DART system was to enable a detailed ®nite element
analysis of the structure to be undertaken.
3.3. Simpli®ed geometry for analysis
Upon receipt of a detailed CAD model of an auto-
motive body structure in the analysis area, the analyst
will ®rst seek to simplify that model. The analyst will
then start to create the FE mesh based mainly upon
past experience of how various components and fea-
tures should be represented in the FE model. Some
items, such as the engine, may be represented as a
6 M. Pinfold, C. Chapman / Computers in Industry 44 (2001) 1±10
Fig. 6. Example product model tree.
lumped mass rather than in any detail, and these are
obtained from a library of such standard parts. The
manner in which the analyst simpli®es the initial CAD
model is the same regardless of the size or type of
vehicle being analysed as, for example, the same types
Fig. 7. Simpli®ed beam model.
of components and jointing methods are used. Thus,
the types of elements used, the element size, the
methods of modelling the joints etc. are the same
each time. The panels are represented as shell ele-
ments and thus, the solid model needs to be simpli®ed
such that a panel is represented by a surface for
example, the bottom surface. This, in some areas
could have meant that when the surface data for the
panels was extracted from the detailed solid model,
gaps between adjacent surfaces may have appeared, or
some surfaces may have overlapped. Thus, before any
subsequent creation of an FE mesh this surface repre-
sentation could need `mending'. If the methods of
doing this `mend' are known they can be stored as
rules within the KBE system and can be undertaken
automatically. However, in this case there was no need
to `mend' the surfaces as with the space frame type of
structure created the surfaces are bounded by a beam
structure.
The structural members for analysis are also repre-
sented as shell elements. This means that the solid
model again needs to be transformed into shells and
the appropriate constants such as thickness applied,
see Fig. 7 for an example of the simpli®cation under-
taken. In some areas the members are represented as
beam elements. In this case the solid model is trans-
formed into a beam representation and the appropriate
constants, such as cross-sectional area and moments of
inertia, are calculated from the solid model and
applied to the beams. The rule sets for how the model
is to be transformed have been created such that this is
done automatically by the DART system and an
appropriate mesh created.
 M. Pinfold, C. Chapman / Computers in Industry 44 (2001) 1±10 7

Fig. 8. Example FE mesh.

The various panels and structural members are
joined in particular ways. They may be spot welded,
bonded or a mixture of both depending upon the
material selected. Rule sets have been created for
how these joints should be represented within the
FE model. The particular types of joints to be used
will be determined by the DART system depending
upon the material type. If spot welds are used for
example, then the DART system will automatically
determine the pitch of them based on its rule sets. If a
cast aluminium joint is to be used, the DART system
automatically determines the allowable mating length
and adjusts the connecting members automatically.
This information is used when simplifying the model
for analysis such that the appropriate position and
types of element to represent the joints is chosen and
their associated constants such as stiffness are applied.
DART system regarding the creation of the mesh
and hence this is done automatically and takes only
a few minutes. Figs. 8 and 9 show examples of the
FE meshes created automatically within the DART
system.
The vehicle structure usually requires two different
types of analysis models to be created. One for stiff-
ness analysis and one for impact modelling. To
demonstrate the feasibility of the approach adopted
here only the rule sets for the generation of the FE
mesh for the stiffness analysis have been created. The

3.4. Mesh generation

Once the simpli®ed representation of the design

model suitable for the creation of an FE mesh is
created, as discussed in Section 3.3, it could be passed
to an external system for mesh generation. However,
as the AML software used in the project has a module
for mesh generation the FE mesh can be automatically
generated within AML. Rules have been created in the Fig. 9. Example FE mesh.
8 M. Pinfold, C. Chapman / Computers in Industry 44 (2001) 1±10
output ®le from DART is in a format suitable for use in
the ANSYS analysis software [20] with various types
of elements such as beams and shells being used. This
output ®le contains all of the ANSYS commands
required to undertake a stiffness analysis of the struc-
ture. The boundary conditions for the analysis are
applied within DART from a database of standard
boundary conditions for different sizes and types of
vehicles. Similarly, a database of material properties is
available. The DART system automatically chooses
the element types based on the rules such that, for
example, a different shell element is used if the
structure is composite to that used if the structure is
steel. The user does have the ability to override the
system such that solid elements may be used in place
of shells for example, if they are more appropriate. As
already mentioned, the element properties required by
the analysis software are computed automatically. In
addition, the elements are grouped in such a manner to
facilitate ease of manipulation.
Such automatic creation of an FE mesh based on
rule sets does tend to formalise this information and
allows a standardised mesh to be created time after
time. This ensures that the same methods of modelling
are always used for particular items such as spot
welds, the same types of elements are used, the same
element properties are used and the geometry is
simpli®ed in the same manner. However, within a
KBE system there is always the possibility of allowing
the users to override defaults such that design
creativity is not sti¯ed and other possible solutions
studied.
4. Discussion
CAD and analysis software companies have recog-
nised the need for integration and have either inte-
grated with other products or have modelling and
analysis software within one system environment.
This, however, does not go far enough and may well
lead to rework. A design system must have within it
the ability to represent a single product model as
various alternative engineering views. There is a great
deal of confusion in this area, because CAD systems
create a geometric model and through data transfer or
direct integration pass the model to other systems and
thus, CAD vendors suggest that the design analysis
modelling route is automated. From an understanding
of the design and analysis process it can be seen that
there is a stage hardly discussed, that of simpli®cation
or model transformation. This step is critical for the
engineering process and often creates extra models
that have no associativity with the original CAD
models. The DART system described here overcomes
these limitations by having the model transform itself
automatically. This is possible because of the dynamic
nature of the object oriented representation used to
model the design process within the DART system.
Thus, a material change, such as a change from a steel
member to aluminium, could entirely restructure the
design. This method of generative modelling allows
the designer to use the KBE model and rapidly per-
form a series of ``what-if'' analyses allowing a number
of alternative design solutions to be considered.
The time taken to gather and create a rule base for a
KBE system can be justi®ed only if the same generic
problem is faced many times. This is the case in the
analysis of the automotive structure described here
where essentially the same generic components are
analysed for the same types of boundary conditions.
All that may differ between analyses are the effects of
the particular vehicle styling and the values of the
applied loads.
KBE systems allow for easily customised user
interfaces to be created and the product model created
by the rule base to be presented to the user in various
ways. There are two main ``views'' of the product
process required here, a full product representation
and the simpli®ed FE analysis representation. Tradi-
tionally the analyst needs to modify and simplify the
design. This will either be done by editing the CAD
data or by creating a completely new model within the
analysis software. The use of the DART system
developed here negates the need to create a new model
for analysis. The detailed geometry created is auto-
matically transformed into the form required for
analysis purposes hence reducing duplication of the
CAD data. Geometry simpli®cation for the creation
of an FE mesh is achieved using the designers knowl-
edge that is stored in the DART system as rule sets.
The knowledge used in KBE systems can be obtained
from many different sources. However, in this case,
the rules regarding the simpli®cation of the geometry
and the subsequent generation of the FE mesh for
the structure are obtained mainly from past experience
 M. Pinfold, C. Chapman / Computers in Industry 44 (2001) 1±10
as few formal design guidelines exist and few
design rules for this type of activity are actually
documented.
4.1. Advantages of DART
The number of elements used in the analysis of the
type of automotive structure considered here is typi-
cally between 80,000 and 250,000, and the mesh
generation can entail up to 15 man weeks of effort
upon receipt of the CAD model. Currently, due to the
time and cost required to generate the analysis models,
they are often used in a post-design phase to evaluate a
®nal design that will only be modi®ed if the results are
unacceptable. This work has demonstrated that if the
geometry simpli®cation and mesh generation for a
structure as shown in Fig. 2 is achieved in a KBE
system then the FE mesh can be generated in minutes.
The meshing is done with respect to heuristic material
and analysis solution rule bases at an object level. The
FE mesh created in DART is directly associated with
the model geometry and thus, any alteration of the
model due to packaging problems for example, does
not entail costly and time consuming rework. The new
mesh is automatically regenerated in minutes thus, the
analysis department could respond much more
quickly to potential design changes imposed by other
departments.
The use of a KBE system also means that many
more design options can be studied in the same time as
was previously used and thus, the use of new materials
to optimise the solution can be investigated. In a
traditional engineering environment more material
options tends to lead to slower overall design and
analysis times. Thus, these material options may not
be investigated at all due to the need to do things
quickly. Use of different materials in a hybrid material
structure may mean that different element types are
needed, e.g. composites may use a laminated shell
element, and the joint types are also different. This
selection of element types is done automatically in the
DART system once the material type is applied as the
system has rule sets for the simpli®cation of the
geometry and the types of element to be used. Thus,
the use of the DART system means that the engineers
can investigate many more `what-if' scenarios than
would traditionally be possible due to time con-
straints.
9
5. Conclusions
The DART system created here has demonstrated
the potential bene®ts achievable by the use of KBE
technology in the area of FE model creation. The KBE
system can automatically transform the detailed geo-
metry into the form required for analysis purposes
hence reducing duplication of the CAD data. Thus, by
using the KBE system the analysis department can
respond much more quickly to potential design
changes imposed by other departments. Whilst the
system described here is speci®c to an automotive
structure the methodology used is generic and can be
applied to any structure where the same steps in the
analysis are undertaken time after time.
Acknowledgements
This work was undertaken as part of a UK Govern-
ment EPSRC sponsored research programme under
the IMI Land Transport programme entitled Structu-
rally Advanced Lightweight Vehicle Objective Project
4 (SALVO4) Structural Analysis of Hybrid Structures.
The partner companies to the University of Warwick
in this programme are Rover Group, British Steel, and
Ove Arup Ltd. The AML software has been provided
by TechnoSoft Inc.
References
[1] T. Robertson, B. Prasad, R. Duggirala, A knowledge based
engineering method to integrate metal forming process design
and simulation, in: P. Bocks, B. Prasad (Eds.), Proceedings of
the 1994 ASME Database Symposium, Engineering data
Management: Integrating the Engineering Enterprise, ASME,
1994, pp. 41±50.
[2] K. Haghighi, E. Kang, A knowledge based approach to the
adaptive ®nite element analysis, in: I. Babushka, J. Flaherty,
W. Henshaw, J. Hopcroft, J. Oliger, T. Tezduyar (Eds.),
Modelling, Mesh Generation and Adaptive Numerical
Methods for Partial Differential Equations, The IMA
Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications, Vol. 75,
Springer, Berlin, 1995, pp. 267±276.
[3] M. Jones, M. Price, G. Butlin, Geometry management support
for auto-meshing, in: Proceedings of the 4th International
Meshing Roundtable, 16±17 October, Sandia National
Laboratories, New Mexico, 1995, pp. 153±164.
[4] M. Sheehy, I. Grosse, An object oriented blackboard based
approach for automated ®nite element modelling and analysis
10 M. Pinfold, C. Chapman / Computers in Industry 44 (2001) 1±10
of multichip modules, Engineering with Computers 13 (1997)
197±210.
[5] M. Saxena, R. Irani, A knowledge based engineering
environment for automated analysis of nozzles, Concurrent
Engineering: Research and Applications 2 (1994) 45±57.
[6] C. Chapman, The design process: a need to rethink the
solution using knowledge based engineering, MSc Thesis,
University of Warwick, 1997.
[7] J. Patel, S. Singhal, B. Prasad, A. Vertiz, Towards the use of
knowledge based engineering system in a concurrent
engineering environment, in: S. Ganesan (Ed.), Proceedings
of the Conference on Advances in Concurrent Engineering Ð
CE97, Technomic Publishers Co., 1997, pp. 379±385.
[8] S. Cooper, I.-S. Fan, R. Roy, K. Sehdev, Reuse of machining
knowledge in aircraft design, in: S. Sivaloganathan, T. Shahin
(Eds.), Proceedings of Conference on Design Reuse Ð
Engineering Design'98, 1998, pp. 263±270.
[9] Adaptive Modelling Language (AML), TechnoSoft Inc., 4424
Carver Woods Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45242, USA.
[10] T. Desaleux, J.-M. Fouet, Expert systems for automatic
meshing, in: K. Bathe, D. Owen (Eds.), Proceedings of the
International Conference on Reliability of Methods for
Engineering Analysis, Swansea, 1986, pp. 503±514.
[11] D. Cheney, Model quality testing: the key to system
interoperability, NAFEMS Benchmark Ð The International
Magazine for Engineering designers and Analysts, October,
1997, pp. 26±29.
[12] S. Fenves, A framework for a knowledge based ®nite element
analysis assistant, in: C. Dym (Ed.), Proceedings of the
Applications of Knowledge Based Systems to Engineering
Analysis and Design, ASME, FL, 1985, pp. 1±7.
[13] S. Fenves, A framework for cooperative development of a
®nite element modelling assistant, in: K. Bathe, D. Owen
(Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on
Reliability of Methods for Engineering Analysis, Swansea,
1986, pp. 475±486.
[14] A. Kissil, H. Kamel, An expert system ®nite element
modeller, in: D. Sriram, R.A. Adey (Eds.), Proceedings of
the 1st International Conference on Applications of Arti®cial
Intelligence in Engineering Problems, Computational Mech.
Publishers, Vol. 2, 1986, pp. 1179±1186.
[15] J. Baugh, D. Rehak, FOOBAR: an arti®cial intelligence based
®nite element system, in: D. Sriram, R.A. Adey (Eds.),
Knowledge Based Expert Systems for Engineering: Classi®-
cation, Education and Control, Computational Mech. Publish-
ers, 1987, pp. 209±220.
[16] J. Mackerle, K. Orsborn, Expert systems for ®nite element
analysis and design optimisation Ð a review, Engineering
Computers 5 (1988) 90±102.
[17] G. Miller, An object oriented approach to structural analysis
and design, in: B.H. Topping (Ed.), Arti®cial Intelligence
Techniques and Applications for Civil and Structural
Engineers, Civil-Comp Press, 1989, pp. 149±155.
[18] I. Taig, Expert aids to ®nite element system applications, in:
D. Sriram, R.A. Adey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Applications of Arti®cial
Intelligence to Engineering Problems, Computational Mech.
Publishers, 1986, pp. 759±770.
[19] W. Zeiler, State of the art, object oriented hybrid intelligent
CAD system, Computers in Industry 20 (1) (1992) 1±9.
[20] ANSYS Inc., Southpointe, 275 Technology Drive, Canons-
burg, PA 15317, USA.
Dr Martyn Pinfold is a Senior Fellow in
the Warwick Manufacturing Group at the
University of Warwick. He obtained his
Ph.D. in the area of the analysis of com-
posite components. He has been involved
in collaborative research for several years
through UK Government funded projects
with the automotive industry concentrat-
ing on the analysis of composite auto-
motive structures. Prior to this he worked
in the CAD/CAM centre at the University.
Craig Chapman is a Senior Fellow with
a long industrial track record working
within various industrial sectors provid-
ing design engineering solutions in an
international consulting environment. He
joined WMG after working in the USA
on KBE projects for companies such as
Allied Signal, Boeing, Goodyear and
Sangiorgio System Technology. Prior
to this he worked for British Aerospace
as a Principal Production Engineer. He
has actively participated in KBE research over a number of years
and is now leading the KBE initiative at Warwick.