doi:10.1016/S0954-1810(99)00002-3
Copyright © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Graph theory representations of engineering systems and their embedded knowledge
O. Shai
, a and K. Preissb
a Department of Solid Mechanics, Materials and Structures, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
b Department of Mechanical Engineering and School of Management, Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel
Received 10 July 1998;
revised 25 November 1998;
accepted 12 December 1998.
Available online 8 July 1999.
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must
purchase this article.
Abstract
The discrete mathematical representations of graph theory, augmented by theorems of matroid theory, were found to have elements and structures isomorphic with those of many different engineering systems. The properties of the mathematical elements of those graphs and the relations between them are then equivalent to knowledge about the engineering system, and are hence termed “embedded knowledge”. The use of this embedded knowledge is illustrated by several examples: a structural truss, a gear wheel system, a mass-spring-dashpot system and a mechanism. Using various graph representations and the theorems and algorithms embedded within them, provides a fruitful source of representations which can form a basis upon which to extend formal theories of reformulation.
Author Keywords: Graph theory; Embedded knowledge; Isomorphic structures; Knowledge representation
Fig. 1. The magic square.
Fig. 2. The cutsets of a graph (a) and its cutset matrix (b).
Fig. 3. The circuits of a graph (a) and its circuit matrix (b).
Fig. 4. A rigid truss for which the common well-formedness rule does not succeed.
Fig. 5. (a) A truss; (b) its corresponding graph; and (c) the graph including the reactions.
Fig. 6. Example of a truss (a) and its corresponding graph (b).
Fig. 7. Example of analysis of determinate and indeterminate truss by using the graph representation: (a) is an indeterminate truss, (c) its graph and (e) its equations derived from the cutset matrix. (b) is a determinate truss, (d) its graph and (f) its equations derived from the cutset matrix.
Fig. 8. The planetary mechanism (a) and its line graph representation (b) (Note: (a) is a standard representation in engineering drawing for a gear system).
Fig. 9. Example of topological analysis of a planetary gear system, with the computer program output shown. (Note: The system is not valid because there is contradiction with Proposition 9, because in circuits {6,0,3} and {6,0,3,4} there is no local reference vertex. The explanation to the user is: the connection between wheels 6 and 3 is not legal because the distance between their centers is zero. The same problem occurs with the connection between wheels 6 and 4.)
Fig. 10. Example of analysis of a planetary gear system.
Fig. 11. Example of analysis of a dynamic system using the graph representation: (a) a dynamic system, (b) the graph, (c) equations derived from the representation.
Fig. 12. Example of the duality between a mechanism and a determinate truss: (a) the mechanism, (b) the truss, (c) the graph of the mechanism, (d) the graphs of the truss and mechanism shown superimposed.
Fig. 13. Example of not-rigid truss and its corresponding dual mechanism: (a) the not-rigid truss ,(b) the corresponding dual mechanism.
Table 1. The flow and potential laws and their details

Table 2. Embedded properties of the line graphs which correspond to planetary gear systems
