REDRAW - A diagrammatic reasoning system for qualitative structural analysis

Advances in Engineering Software

Volumn 25, Issue 2-3, 1996, Pages 149-159

  Tessler, Shirley ^a   Iwasaki, Yumi ^a   Law, Kincho H ^a  

^a Stanford University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; GRAPHIC METHODS; PROBLEM SOLVING; STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS; STRUCTURAL FRAMES;

DIAGRAMMATIC REASONING SYSTEM; QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS;

SOFTWARE PROTOTYPING;

EID: 0030102550     PISSN: 09659978     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0965-9978(95)00098-4     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Iwasaki, Y., Qualitative physics. In The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, eds. A. Barr, P. Cohen & E. Feigenbaum, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1989, Vol. 4.
2. Fruchter, R., Law, K. H. & Iwasaki, Y., QSTRUC: an approach for qualitative structural analysis, In Artificial Intelligence and Structural Engineering, Proc. Second International Conference on the Application of Artificial Intelligence to Civil and Structural Engineering, Civil-Comp Press, 1991.
3. Roddis, W. M. K. & Martin, J. L., Qualitative reasoning about steel bridge fatigue and fracture. Fifth International Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning about Physical Systems, 1991, p. 302-317.
4. Slater, J. H., Qualitative physics and the prediction of structural behavior. Proc. ASCE Symposium on Expert Systems in Civil Engineering, ed. C. N. Kostom & M. L. Maher, 1986, pp. 239-248.
5. Bozzo, L. M. & Fenves, G. L., Reducing ambiguity in qualitative reasoning. Proc. Fifth International Conference on Computing In Civil and Bridge Engineering, ed. L. F. Cohn, 1993, pp. 1259-1266.
6. Martin, J. L. & Roddis, W. M. K., Integrating qualitative and quantitative reasoning in structural engineering. Proc. Fifth International Conference on Computing In Civil and Bridge Engineering, ed. L. F. Cohn, 1993, pp. 1235-1242.
7. Schwartz, D. J. & Chen, S. S., Order of magnitude reasoning for qualitative matrix structural analysis. Proc. Fifth International Conference on Computing In Civil and Bridge Engineering, ed. L. F. Cohn, 1993, 1267-1274.
8. Larkin, J. H. & Simon, H. A., Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 1987, 11.
9. Chandrasekaran, B. & Narayanan, N. H. Towards a theory of commonsense visual reasoning. In Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, 1990.
10. Novak, G. & Bulko, W., Uses if diagrams in solving physics problems. AAAI Symposium on Reasoning with Diagrammatic Representations, Stanford, CA, 1992.
11. Borning, A. H., Thinglab - a constraint-oriented simulation laboratory. PhD dissertation, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, 1979.
12. Lindsay, R. K., Diagrammatic reasoning by simulation. AAAI Symposium on Reasoning with Diagrammatic Representations, Stanford, CA, 1992.
13. Koedinger, K. & Anderson, J. R., Abstract planning and perceptual chunks: elements of expertise in geometry. Cognitive Science, 1990, 14, 511-550.
14. Chandrasekaran, B., Narayanan, H. & Iwasaki, Y., Reasoning with diagrammatic representations: a report on the AAAI Spring Symposium, March 25-27, 1992. AI Mag., 1993, 142, 49-56.
15. Brohn, D. Understanding Structural Analysis, BSP Professional Books, Oxford, 1984.