Kiliccote, H (1997) A standards processing framework. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, USA.
Abstract
Civil engineers create and employ a very large number of design standards, especially in the United States. Designing using such a large number of design standards is a tedious, laborious, and difficult task. One major research task in Computer-Aided Engineering (CAE) is the development of software tools that assist in the usage of design standards during the design process. This dissertation, a standards processing framework is presented. It is an agent-based approach to providing computer-aided support for using design standards. In this framework, modules, such as standards processing servers, are treated as agents communicating using a defined communication language. One immediate advantage of this architecture is that it allows the incorporation of a broad, powerful set of representation for use in modeling design standards.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Garrett Jr., J |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | standards; communication; computer-aided engineering; United States; civil engineer |
| Index terms: | module, dissertation, modelling, design standard, design process, computer-aided engineering, United States, civil engineer, agent |
| Subjects: | architectural elements, Geography, design technology, research dissemination and communication, profession, design methods, practitioner, technical documentation, analytical methods |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here