International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, Vol.3, No. 1 (April, 2010), 115-122

SIMILARITY MEASURING APPROACH FOR ENGINEERING MATERIALS
SELECTION
DORESWAMY1, M.N. VANAJAKSHI2
Department of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in Computer Science
Mangalore University, Mangalagangotri-574 199,Karnataka, INDIA
Phone:+91-824-2287670, E-mail: doreswamyh@yahoo.com

1

2

Department of Computer Science and Engineering
PES College of Engineering, Mandya, INDIA.
E-mail: vanaja.sp@gmail.com

Received: 30-04-2009
Accepted: 19-10-2009
Abstract
Advanced engineering materials design involves the exploration of massive multidimensional feature spaces, the correlation
of materials properties and the processing parameters derived from disparate sources. The search for alternative materials
or processing property strategies, whether through analytical, experimental or simulation approaches, has been a slow and
arduous task, punctuated by infrequent and often expected discoveries. A few systematic efforts have been made to analyze
the trends in data as a basis for classifications and predictions. This is particularly due to the lack of large amounts of
organized data and more importantly the challenging of shifting through them in a timely and efficient manner. The
application of recent advances in Data Mining on materials informatics is the state of art of computational and experimental
approaches for materials discovery. In this paper similarity based engineering materials selection model is proposed and
implemented to select engineering materials based on the composite materials constraints. The result reviewed from this
model is sustainable for effective decision making in advanced engineering materials design applications.
Keywords: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, Composite Materials Selection, Similarity Measure.

1.

Introduction

Engineering materials are the artificial materials, such
as Polymer, Ceramic, Metal and their composite with
fiber reinforced materials, which are being used in our
daily life. Any two materials could be combined to
make a composite and they might be mixed in much
geometry. Selection of design and fabrication processes
associated to engineering materials design is the tedious
task that is being faced by the most of the
manufacturing industries. The selection of appropriate
materials, which meet the design requirements and
improve the performance, reliability, durability of
composite material, is the critical task in Computer
Aided Design (CAD) and Computer Aided
Manufacturing (CAM) systems[5].

costs, materials selection system is very much
essential to ease the difficult complex process. This
selection process involves decision-making strategies in
determining the prerequisite materials that suit the
design specifications and requirements of composite
design.
Metals

Polymers

Composite

Ceramics

Fibers

As wide variety of more than 50000 materials
available today and varying in their characteristics and
Fig. 1: The material classes from which composite are made

Published by Atlantis Press
Copyright: the authors
115

Doreswamy
Cost effective materials selection that meet the design
requirements reduces the manufacturing cost, increases
manufacturing throughput and reduces the materials
selection complexity as posed by a designer. To
automate computer aided manufacturing systems,
various intelligent decision support systems were
designed [1] [2] [3] [4] [8] [11] [12]. The applications
of expert system play major role in diverse application
fields from materials design and their manufacturing.
Design of computational expert systems on wider range
of data sets have still research scope in advanced
engineering materials design applications[6][13][14].
Therefore, Composite Materials Selection System
(CMSS) is proposed and implemented in this paper.
The paper has been organized as follows. The
second section presents the composite materials
selection system. The third section describes similarity
measure functions. The forth section describes the
selection strategy on different materials type. The last
section concludes the work and briefs the future work
scope.
2. Composite Materials Selection System
Expert systems are programs in which domain
knowledge about a problem is embedded in a set of
modules called as rules, frames, objects, or scripts that
are stored in a repository called a knowledgebase. The
Composite Materials Selection System (CMSS) is
developed in order to simplify the complex selection
process for opting appropriate materials that meet the
design requirements. The structure of the proposed
system is shown in the figure 2.
Knowledgebase

List Of input parameters

Index Based Classifier
Generate Fragment
Database

The CMSS consists of several integrated modules that
are responding for potential input parameters to
produce outputs that are treated as inputs of another
module. The integrated modules of CMSS are input
module, Indexed based classifier [9] [10], fragment
database generator, distance measure computation
module and materials selection module. All these
modules
are
simplified
with
non-redundant
computational effort.
The input module (list of input parameters) provides
the CMSS a list of materials characteristics that are
specified by design engineers. It will be interacting
with both the indexed based classifier and fragment
database generator. Index based decision classifier
scans through the inputs and segregates materials
characteristics/ attributes into different classes that are
represented by nodes. The segregation of attributes into
different classes based on the classification rules
defined in the knowledgebase of the system. The
outcome of index based decision classifier is forwarded
to the fragment database generator that selects the
portion of the database containing matching attributes
with the tuples belonging to materials class as predicted
by the index classifier.
2.1. Composite Design Specifications
The composite design specifications are the parameters
[6] of a component to be designed and a design
engineer derives these parameters. Design requirements
are the properties of primary importance such as
physical properties, mechanical properties, chemical
properties, thermal properties and so on. These
properties represent quantitative attribute and linguistic
values of a component. There are 23 properties
considered in this system. Some quantitative properties
have range values (Density: 0.23cm3 to 0.56cm3) and
others properties have ordinals/linguistic/categorical
values (Poor- Excellent). Each ordinal/linguistic value
is replaced with a unique numeric weight.

Materials Database

2.2. Composite Material Database organization
Material(s) Selection

Distance measure
Computation

Fig. 2. Composite Material Selection System (CMSS)

Material Database(MD) consists of different classes of
materials such as Polymer, Ceramic and Metal. All
materials are having the same set of properties but
some of them are linguistic properties.

Published by Atlantis Press
Copyright: the authors
116

Similarity Measuring Approach For

2.3. Knowledgebase
Knowledgebase [7] is defined as “A database of
knowledge about a subject; used in Artificial
Intelligence. The knowledgebase for an expert system
(a computer system that solves problems) comes partly
from human experience and partly from the computer's
experience in solving problems. It must be expressed in
a formal knowledge representation language for the
computer to use it”. The knowledgebase of CMSS
consists of 23 decision rules and each decision rule
generates a prime index pattern that represents a
material class.
2.4. Index Based Classifier
Index based decision classier shown in figure 3 is a
simple and robust classifier that is used as decisionmaking principles in most of the fields such as Machine
Learning, Pattern Recognition, Image Processing and
Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. It
discriminates design requirement properties based on
the expert rules defined in the knowledgebase. Each
class generated by the classifier is implemented with
linked lists. Each node in a list has three fields
including Property Name (PN), Property Index(PI) and
a Pointer(Ptr) for respectively storing the next property
name as defined in the input design requirement list,
index value generated by the decision classifier, and
the next node address.

Ceramic

Class

2.5. Generating Fragment Database
The Material Database (DM) stores all classes of
materials, C = {P, C, M}. Each class is having the
materials attributes, A = {a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 , a5 ,..........am }.
A
class of materials fragmented from material database is
proportional to O(N) time complexity in the best,
average and worst cases of analysis. This fragmented
data space reduces the computational efforts with less
memory space during computing distance measure
values.
A Fragmented Database(FD) consists of N number of
tuples, T = {t1 , t 2 , t 3 , t 4 , t 5 , ..........t N }, each tuple, t i ,
consists
of
m
materials
The
A = {a1 , a 2 , a 3 , a 4 , a 5 , ..........a m }.

attributes,
design

requirements of class Ci represented by the set
R = {r1 , r2 , r3 , r4 , r5 , ..........rn } are the properties
specified by the design engineers. The unwanted
attributes in the tuples of FD can be eliminated still for
reducing the computational complexity. The relevant
design requirement properties of interest are obtained
by the following set operation.

FDn = R ∩ A, R ∈ A

(1)

The resultant database obtained by (1) is represented
with object – by- variable structure. The structure in the
form of a relational table of N-by-n is a data matrix and
is represented as bellow:

List of Design
Requirements

Polymer
Class

In the first step of classifier, when a property is
randomly sampled from a design requirement list, the
classifier invokes the rules defined in the
knowledgebase and creates a node in the class
corresponding to the index pattern.

Metal
Class

⎡x1,1..........
..x1, f ........x1,n ⎤
⎢
⎥
..
.....
...
...
.
⎥
⎢
⎢
..xi, f ........xi,n ⎥
DN×n = xi,l ..........
⎢
⎥
⎢.....
... ....... ⎥
⎢
⎥
⎣⎢.xN,1..........xN, f ........xN,n ⎦⎥

Fig. 3: Index Based Classifier

Published by Atlantis Press
Copyright: the authors
117

(2)

Doreswamy
The minimum distance between the input data set
y = {y1 , y 2 , y 3 , y 4 , y 5 , .......... y n } and a feature set

, x = {x1 , x 2 , x3 , x 4 , x5 , ..........x n } in the data space,

iv. Geometric Average Minimum:
n

d ( y , x )

=

∑

min(

∑ [x
k = 1

DN ×n , is computed using a distance measure
functions.
3. Distance Measure Computation
Similarity/Distance measure functions are used to
compute the logical distance between the input data set
say, y, and the data set, x, in a data space. The
applications of these are employed in Data Mining and
Knowledge Discovery fields [7] for data classification
and clustering analysis. Any function is said to be
distance metric function if it satisfy all the four
conditions(1-4), otherwise similarity function if it
satisfies the first three following conditions:

1. d ( x, y ) ≥ 0; the distance is a non-negative
number.

∑

k

, y

k

. y

k

k =1

(6)

)

]1 / 2

v.
Correlation
Coefficient measure:
k

xk − xi yk − y

−
⎡ n
2 ⎤
⎢∑ ( xk − x j) ⎥
⎦
⎣ k =1

1 / 2

(7)

−

−

n

d ( y, x) =

x

k = 1
n

j

−
⎡ n
2 ⎤
⎢∑ ( yk − y j ) ⎥
⎣ k =1
⎦

1 / 2

−

−
1 n
1 n
x i = ∑ xk , y j = ∑ y k
n k =1
n k =1

vi. Exponential Similarity Measure:

d ( y, x) =

n

∑

k =1

yk − xk
1+ e

− y k − x ,k

(8)

zero.

x = {x1 , x 2 , x3 , x 4 , x5 , ..........x n }
and
y = {y1 , y 2 , y 3 , y 4 , y 5 , .......... y n } are two n

3. d ( x, y ) = d ( y, x) ; The distance is symmetric

dimensional data objects.

2. d ( x, x) = 0; the distance of an object to itself is

function

4. d ( x, z ) + d ( z , y ) ≥ d ( x, y ) ; Going directly from
an object, x, to an object, y, in space is no more than
making a detour over any other object other than object
z (triangular inequality).
There are various popular distance measuring
functions that are satisfying the above principles.
Euclidian distance measure [7] metric is employed for
distance computations. This distance measure metric is
defined as follow:
d ( y, x) =

n

∑ (y
i =1

where

i

− xi )2

x = {x1, , x 2 , x3 , x 4 , x5 , ..........x n }

y = {y1 , y 2 , y 3 , y 4 , y 5 , .......... y n }

are

two

n

yi − xi

n

∑

k =1

⎞
yk − xk ⎟
⎠

n

and

5. Experimental Simulation Results

n

(4)

iii. Absolute Exponential measure:
⎛
d ( y , x ) = exp ⎜ −
⎝

It is the process of selecting the best match data object
in data space for an input data object. The best match
for an input data object is determined by the Euclidian
distance computation. This has been using as standard
distance measure function in data mining and
knowledge discovery [7]. The best match object for an
input object is selected through the determination of the
least similarity measure value.

(3)

i. City Block Distance Metric

∑

4. Similarity Material Selection

min{d (i )}iN=1 = ∑ y j − Di, j

dimensional data objects.

d ( y, x) =

where

(5)

(9)

j =1

Material database used in the CMSS has 2000
materials data sets including Polymers Ceramics and
Metals. Each one has 23 properties and includes both
numerical and categorical values. The categorical
values have been predefined with numeric values so
that to distinguish them numerically among them in the
computations. The Euclidian distance between the input
requirements and the properties of each material in the

Published by Atlantis Press
Copyright: the authors
118

Similarity Measuring Approach For
selected class are computed. A material corresponding
to the least distance is selected as the potential material
that meets the design requirements.
Design specification specified by design engineers
are the input parameters that enabled the CMSS
through the form shown in figure 4. Initial

classification on input design requirements into
Polymer, Ceramic and Metal Classes, the fragment
materials data sets generated and the material selected
by the Euclidian measuring technique from the
different classes are shown in the figure 5.

Fig. 6: Materials selected using Euclidian Distance Measure.

Fig. 4: Input Design requirement form

Fig. 5: Fragmented materials and the materials selected from
the respective selected materials data set.

Published by Atlantis Press
Copyright: the authors
119

Doreswamy
Fig. 6(a):
Measure.

Materials selected using City-Block Distance

Fig. 6(b):
Measure.

Materials selected using Absolute Exponential

Fig. 6(d). Materials selected using Exponential Similarity
Measure.

Fig. 7: Performance of evaluation of different Distance
measure Techniques.

Fig. 6(c):
Measure.

Materials selected using Geometric Average

Different distance measure computations performed for
materials selection are shown in figures 6-6(d). Polymer
class properties generated by the indexed classifier are
listed in the table 1. Materials selected over the degree
of similarity computed between the properties in table 1
and in the fragmented data sets are shown in the table 2.
From this table 2, it shows that distance/similarity
measure functions (3), (4), (5), (7) and (8) belonging to
L1 family and are competent enough to select the
materials that are very closure to the input specification.
However, the function (6) and (7) are feasible for
materials selection, but function (7) is more appropriate
for analyzing redundancy and consistency among the
materials data sets. Function (6) is not the feasible one as
it maps to the different material in the class.
The L1 family functions and the functions (6) and (7)
are compared and shown in the Table 2 and their
performance evaluation on numeric approximation is
depicted in the figure 7. The degree of similarity of
Euclidian distance function is less that emphasizes much
closeness among the L1 family functions. The degrees of
similarity of functions (6) and (7) depicted in the table 2

Published by Atlantis Press
Copyright: the authors
120

Similarity Measuring Approach For
( Sl. nos. 4 and 5 ) are still less than the Euclidian
distance measure, however, one of these functions(6)
maps the input design requirements to the materials that

do not guarantee the optimal and expected design
requirements performance.

Table 1: Input parameter list associated to a material under Polymer class(Y)
Tensile Strength

Yield Strength

Impact Strength

Hardness

Tensile Modulus

20.00

23.90

4.00

56.67

2000.00

Table 2: Degree of similarity and materials selected from the Polymer class by different distance measuring functions
Materials Selected from the Polymer Class
Sl.No.

Distance / Similarity Measure
Functions

Degree of
Similarity

Tensile
Strength

Yield
Strength

Impact
Strength

Hardness

Tensile
Modulu
s

1

Euclidian Distance Measure

400.4097

27.456

12.21

4

67.32

2399.47

2

City Block Distance Measure

453.353

27.456

12.21

4

67.32

2399.47

3

Absolute Exponential Measure

456.071

27.456

12.21

4

67.32

2399.47

4

Geometric Average Measure

4.6270

2.34

22.456

4

3

1.0E+06

5

Correlation Coefficient Measure

0.89343

27.456

12.21

4

67.32

2399.47

6

Exponential Similarity Measure

452.7948

27.456

12.21

4

67.32

2399.47

6. Conclusion And Future Work Scope
Effective design of materials and their composites
includes complex redundant computational efforts.
These redundant computational efforts are reduced in
the MCSS. Simple and robust Fragment Database(FD)
was generated for speeding up the selection processes
and for removing materials attributes that were not
consistent for measuring similarity between two
materials. Euclidian distance measuring function is
compared with exponential similarity measure
function[11] that approximates the similarity value than
the city block distance measure values in eliminating
the outliers from the large data set. One of the
disadvantages of the Euclidian distance metric function
is that if one of the input attributes has a relatively large
range, then it can overpower the other attributes. For
example if an application has just two attributes, X and

Y, and X can have values from 100.0 to 1000.0, and Y
can have values only from 10.0 to 100.0 then Y’s
influence on the distance function will usually be
overpowered by X’s influence. Therefore, distance are
required to be normalized by dividing the distance for
each attribute by the range that is maximum-minimum
of that attribute so normalize to desired range. This
family of distance measures are not suitable for ordinal
values.
The CMSS would be failure when the attributes
values are very small and majority of the attributes
having categorical values. This declines the selection
performance. This drawback of this system can be
overridden through the supervised learning neural

Published by Atlantis Press
Copyright: the authors
121

Doreswamy
network algorithm with fuzzy based axioms for
approximating categorical and numerical values.
Further, this module can also be extended as an
effective decision support system for extracting
relevant knowledge of materials and their properties
for designing high performance composite materials.
Acknowledgement
This work has been supported by the University Grant
Commission (UGC), India under Major Research
Project entitled “Scientific Knowledge Discovery
Systems (SKDS) For Advanced Engineering Materials
Design Applications” vide reference no. 34-99\2008
(SR), 30th December 2008. The author gratefully
acknowledges the support.
References
[1].

Wenham Zhang, Michael J. Bazooka, Laager Kari and
Eric J. Amiss, An open source Informatics Systems for
Combinatorial
Materials
Research,
Polymeric
Materials: Science & Engineering, 2004, 90,341.

[2].

Krishna Rajan and Mohammed Sake, “Data Mining
through Information Association: A Knowledge
Discovery tool for Materials Science”, CODATA
proceedings, Beaver, Italy, 2002.

[3].

[4].

Ronald E. Giachetti,” Decision Support System for
Material and Manufacturing Selection” Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing, January, 1997, (5): 656671.
D. Bourell, “Decision Matrices in Material Selection”.,
ASM metals hand book, Vol. 20, Volume Chair
Materials
George Dieter, ASM International,
Park,OH,1997, pp.243-254.

[5].

P.A. Gutteridge and J. Turner,” Computer Aided
Materials Selection and Design”, Journal of Materials
and Design, 3, August 1982, pp.504-510.

[6].

Michael Goebel and Le Greenwood, ”A Survey Of
Data Mining And Knowledge Discovery Software
Tools”, ACM SIGKDD, June 1999, Vol.1 (1): 20-32.

[7].

Jawed Han and Michelin Camber, “Data Mining
Concepts and Techniques”, Elsewhere Science, India
2002.

[8].

Tokyo, McGraw-Hill, Edwards, K, L. “Towards more
effective decision support in materials and Design
Engineering”. Materials and design: 1994. 5(5):251258.

[9].

Doreswamy, S. C. Sharma, and M Krishna,
“Knowledge Discovery System for Cost-Effective
Composite Polymer Selection-Data Mining Approach”,
12th International Conference on Management of Data
COMAD 2005b, Hyderabad, India, December 20-22,
2005, pp. 185-190.

[10]. Doreswamy, S. C. Sharma, M. Krishna and H N
Murthy, “Data Mining Application In Knowledge
Extraction
Of
Polymer
And
Reinforcement
Clustering”, Proceedings of International Conference
on Systemic, Cybernetics And Informatics, Pentagram
Research Center, Hyderabad, INDIA, January 4th to
8th , 2006, pp.562-566.
[11]. Doreswamy and S.C. Sharma, “An Expert Decision
Support System for Engineering Materials Selections
And Their Performance Classifications on Design
Parameters”, International Journal of Computing and
Applications (ICJA), June 2006. Vol.1 (1):17-34.
[12]. Doreswamy, “Engineering Materials Classification
Model- A Neural Network Application”, IJDCDIS A
Supplement, Advances in Neural Networks, 2007, Vol.
(14) (S1): 591-595.
[13]. Doreswamy, “A survey for Data Mining framework for
polymer Matrix Composite Engineering materials
Design Applications” International Journal of
Computational Intelligence Systems (IJCIS), 2008.
Vol.1(4): 312-328,
[14]. Krishna Rajan, Materials Informatics Part 1; A
diversity of Issues, Journal of Materials, March 2008.

Published by Atlantis Press
Copyright: the authors
122

