Compufers & Sfrucrures Vol. 40. No. 4, pp.893-901, 1991 0045.7949/91 $3.00 + 0.

00
Printed in Great Britain. Pergamon Press plc

GRAPHS AND STRUCTURES

A. KAVEHt

Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran 16844, Iran

(Received 5 June 1990)

Abstract-The theory of graphs has found many applications in structural engineering. The study of the
rigidity of structures, flexibility analysis, dynamic analysis, optimization, finite elements, graphics, sparse
matrix technology and ordering are among those which have benefited more than other subjects. This
paper reviews some of these applications. Methods are developed for determining the topological
invariants of skeletal structures. The applications are extended to the generation of statical bases leading
to sparse and banded flexibility matrices, for an efficient flexibility analysis of structures.

INTRODUCTION basis corresponding to a set of independent com-

patibility equations should be constructed. The di-
Graph theory is a branch of mathematics which has mension of such a basis, y(S), is the same as
found many applications in engineering and science. the degree of statical indeterminacy (DSI) of the
In the field of structural mechanics, it is successfully structure.
applied to the conceptual analysis of structures by Adopting a graph-theoretical approach, a statical
Langefors [l], Kron [2], Henderson [3], Samuels- (kinematical) basis can be formed on substructures
son [4], Wiberg [S] and Trent [6]. For the analysis of corresponding to the elements of generalized cycle
skeletal structures when the structure is viewed as a (cut-set) basis.
system, the formulation is made by Lind [7], The stiffness matrix K of a skeletal structure is
Spillers [8], Dimmagio [9] and Fenves [lo]. In order pattern-equivalent to the cut-set basis adjacency
to overcome the difficulties involved in the force matrix N = LL of its graph model S, where L is the
method of structural analysis, graph theory is cut-set-edge incidence matrix of the corresponding
employed by Henderson and Maunder [l l] and basis. Similarly the flexibility matrix G is pattern
Kaveh [12]. Oden and Neighbors [ 131 applied graph equivalent to the generalized cycle basis adjacency
theory to the nonlinear analysis of structures, and matrix D = CC, where C is the generalized cycle-
Fenves and Gonzalez-Caro [ 141 and Livesley [ 151 edge incidence matrix of the selected basis.
used in the plastic analysis. Cassell[16] and Shanghui For an efficient analysis of a structure by stiffness
and Guohua [17] employed the finite element analy- method or flexibility approach, the sparsity of K or
sis. Rigidity of structures via a graph theoretical G should be maximized. This can be achieved to a
approach was studied by Laman [18], Loviz and great extent by maximizing the sparsity of N and D,
Yemini [19], Sughihara [20] and Kaveh [21]. Graph respectively. The simplicity of the stiffness method is
theory has been extensively used in ordering by due to the natural existence of a special cut-set basis,
many researchers such as Cuthill and McKee [22], known as a cocycle basis, consisting of the cuts
Cheng [23] and Kaveh [24,25]. around the nodes of S, except the ground node. This
Analysis of a structure involves the study of three basis corresponds to a highly sparse N matrix,
different properties: topological (graph theoretical), although the sparsity is not maximal for all the
geometrical, and material. Separate study of these structures. However, no such a simple generalized
properties results in a considerable simplification in cycle basis can be generated for the flexibility analysis
the analysis and leads to a clear understanding of the of the structures.
structural behaviour. This paper is devoted only to For rigid-jointed frames a statical basis can be
the study of the graph-theoretical properties of generated on the elements of a cycle basis. Efficient
skeletal structures. methods are developed for selecting cycle bases corre-
For the stiffness analysis of a structure, a sponding to sparse flexibility matrices [26-281. For
kinematical basis leading to a set of independent general skeletal structures, suboptimal generalized
equilibrium equations should be formed. The di- cycle basis leading to sparse flexibility matrices are
mension of such a basis, q(S), is the same as the selected[29]. Special methods for the formation of
degree of kinematical indeterminacy (DKI) of such bases are given in Ref. [30].
the structure. For the flexibility analysis, a statical In this paper, some basic concepts of graph theory
necessary for the analysis of skeletal structures are
tGuest professor, Institut fiir Allgemeine Mechanik, presented. Methods are developed for determin-
TU-Wien, A-1040, Vienna, Austria. ing topological invariants applied to the flexibility

893
894 A. KAVEH

analysis of rigid-jointed skeletal structures. Some

concepts of graph theory are generalized to include
properties of different types of skeletal structures. A
method is presented for generating suboptimal gener-
alized cycle bases of an arbitrary type of skeletal s=s,us, s, s, s,n s,
structure. A simple approach is included for ordering Fig. 2. Union and intersection of two subgraphs.
the elements of the selected bases leading to banded
flexibility matrices. ti,, = 0 otherwise. Unlike graph theory we consider
n,,=l fori=l,...,N
DEFINITIONS FROM GRAPH THEORY
4 n2 n3 n4
For readers who are not familiar with the theory of n, 1 1 1 1
graphs, the necessary definitions for the study of this
article are described below. Ji= n3
4 I 1 1 1 01 I
A finite graph S consists of a set N(S) of elements
n4 1 0 1 1
called nodes (vertices) and a set M(S) of elements
called members (edges) together with a relation of
Deleting the row and column corresponding to de-
incidence which associates with each member a pair
pendent cocycle n, , leads to cocycle basis adjacency
of distinct nodes called its end nodes. The degree
matrix N
(valency) of a node of S is the number of members
incident with that node. The incidence relation may 1 1 0
be represented as of the following forms: N=l 11.
(a) A member list which is constructed from a list
[0 1 11
of members with their end nodes. This list is given for
the graph S shown in Fig. 1. A graph S, is a subgraph of S if N(S) sN(S),
(b) A node-member incidence matrix z = [&I, M(S,) GM(S), and each member of S, has the same
which is defined by 4 = 1 if node n, is an end node of end nodes as in S. The union of subgraphs S, , S,, . ,
member m, and 6 = 0 otherwise. For S this matrix S, of S, denoted by Sp = Up=, S, = S, US2U. . . US,, is
becomes a subgraph of S such that N(SP) = Up=, N(S) and
M(Sp) = Ur=, M(S,). The intersection of two sub-
m, m2 m3 m4 4
graphs Si and S, denoted by Si OS,, is similarly defined
4 1 1 1 0 0
using the intersection of their node-sets and member-
I= 4 1 0 0 1 0 sets (Fig. 2).
*3 0 1 0 1 1 A path Pk in S is a finite sequence Pk =
n4 0 0 1 0 1 {n,,m,,..., mp, n,} whose terms are alternately
nodes ni and members m, of S, where n,_ , and ni are
Taking n, as a ground node (dependent cocycle) a the two end nodes of mi (1 < i < p). A simple path in
new incidence matrix is created by deleting the row S is a path in which no member or node of S appear
corresponding to this node. The rows of this matrix, more than once. If end nodes no and np of a simple
denoted by L, contains independent cocycles forming path corresponds to end nodes of a member m$,
a cocycle basis. A cocycle is a set of members which then P,Umj! forms a simple cycle Ci of length
isolates the node incident with these members. Matrix L (C,) = p + 1. The length of P,, L (Pi) = p, is taken
L for graph S of Fig. 1 with n, as a ground node as the number of its members. The path Pi is called
becomes a shortest path between two nodes no and np if any
ml m2 m3 m4 m5 other path P, between these nodes L(P,) < L(P,). In
1 0 0 1 0 this paper simple cycles will be referred to as cycles.
The member m$ is called the generator of C,. A cycle
0 1 0 1 1
generated on a member mf is called a minimal cycle if
n,lO 0 1 0 11 P, is a shortest path other than the generator (see
Fig. 3).
(c) A node adjacency matrix of S, which is defined

a
by m = [AJ, where & = 1 if member (n,, n,) is in S and

Member End nodes

PC,
ml
no
Ci

Fig. 1. A planar structure S. Fig. 3. A minimal cycle C, of length 3 on m:.

 Graphs and structures 895

Fg= 0 otherwise. For graph S of Fig. 1, three cycles

can be generated

\
a
Fig. 4. A shortest route tree rooted from Q
and the cycle-edge incidence matrix is formed as

1
Two nodes ni and nj are said to be connected if m1 m2 m3 m4 m5
there exists a path between these nodes. A graph S is c, 1 1 0 1 0
said to be connected if all pairs of its nodes are 1
c=c* [ 0 1 1 0
connected. A component of a graph S is a maximal
c, 1 0 1 1 1
connected subgraph, i.e. it is not a subgraph of any
other connected subgraph of S.
Obviously C, is dependent on C, and C,, and a cycle
A tree T of S is a connected subgraph of S which
basis contains only two cycles, i.e. C, and C2. Hence
contains no cycle. If T contains all the nodes of S, it

1
is called a spanning tree of S. The complement of
1 1 0 1
members of T is S are the chords of this tree. A
shortest route tree rooted from a node n, of S is a tree c= [0 1 1 0 01
for which the distance of every node nj of T and n,
is minimum (see Fig. 4). A set of trees is called a forms a cycle-edge basis incidence matrix of S, and
forest. the corresponding cycle basis adjacency matrix D is
Two cycles C, and C, can be added to form their formed as
ring sum as C, 0 C, = C, UC, - C,flC, . Equivalently,
one can identify a cycle with its incidence vector, and D=CC=
cycle addition as vector addition over the integer
modulo 2. The set of all cycles is closed under
addition, forming a cycle space. A maximal set of where
independent cycles is known as a cycle basis. The h (9
cardinality of a cycle basis is the same as the first Betti i& L(C,) = trace D = 6.
number

The genus y(S) of a graph S is the minimum

6, (S) = M - N + b,(S),
where M, N and b,(S) are the numbers of members,
nodes and components of S, respectively.
The cycle-edge incidence matrix c = [Ei,] of S has
a row for each cycle and a column for each member
with Eii= 1 if the ith cycle contains member mj and
number of handles which must be added to a sphere
so that S can be embedded on the resulting surface.
Obviously y(S) = 0 if and only if S is planar. The
thickness e(S) of a graph is the minimum number of
planar subgraphs whose union is S. The crossing
number v(S) of a graph S is the minimum number of
pairwise intersection of its members when S is drawn
in the plane. Obviously v(S) = 0 if and only if S is

A Plane frame Datum node

A Plane truss Graph model of the truss

Fig. 5. Structures and their graph models.

896 A. KAVEH

planar. A graph is planar if it can be embedded in the Skfl Sk,,. The subgraphs S, (i = 1, . . . , q) may con-
plane. Genus, thickness and crossing number are sist of a member, a simple cycle or any other sub-
called the topological invariants of a graph. graph having prescribed values for cz(Si) and/or
a(A,). For different purpose, imposing restriction on
THE GRAPH MODEL OF A STRUCTURE
the choice of subgraphs Sk + , and their intersection
A k+, at each step, useful information can be
The mathematical model S of a skeletal structure obtained.
is considered to be finite graph without loops and
multiple edges (members). For rigid-jointed skeletal
structures (frames), S is constructed by representing A GENERAL UNION-INTERSECTION THEOREM
each element of the structure by a member and each
joint by a node in a one-to-one correspondence, In the process of expansion, at each stage, the
except for support joints which are in many-to-one properties of expanded subgraph Sk should be inves-
correspondence. Trusses are similarly modelled, how- tigated. The following theorem provides a powerful
ever, in this case structures are assumed to be simply mean for this purpose.
supported (Fig. 5).
Theorem 1
A UNIFYING FUNCTION
Let S = UT= I S, be the graph model of a structure
Consider a linear function g(S) in the following with the following functions being defined
form
a(S) = aM + bN + ca,(S)
cc(S) = aM + bN + cm,(S),
cc(S,)=aM,+bN,+ca,(S,), fori=l,..., q
where M, N and cc,(S) are the numbers of members,
nodes and components of S, respectively. The co- and
efficients a, b and c are integer parameters depending
on both the type of the corresponding structure and r(A,)=uR,+b~i+cccr,(Ai), for i=2 ,..., q,
the property which the function is expected to rep-
resent. For example IX(S) with appropriate values for where I@, and x, are the numbers of members and
a, b and c may describe the DSI [y(S)] or DKI [q(S)] nodes of Ai, respectively. Then
of a certain type of skeletal structure as given in
Table 1, or the first Betti number b,(S) of S as defined ]cL(s) - czO(s)1= i LccCsi)
- cGIO(si)l
,=I
and employed in graph theory.
It should be mentioned that the function a(S) can
- ,t2 [a(Ai)- Cool. (2)
be written in a more general form to include higher
dimensional elements, such as the inclusion of shear A simple proof of this theorem may be found in
pannels, etc. Kaveh [ 16,201.

AN EXPANSION PROCESS
Special case
In order to study a property of the graph model S Let S and S, (i = 1,. . . , q) be connected sub-
of a structure, S can be reformed by a sequence of q graphs, then (2) can be simplified as
elementary expansions as follows:

S, = S/lS/l. ./sq = s, cc(S) = i cc(S) - i E(A,),

(1) i=, 1-2

where Sk = Uf= , Si, Sk+ = SkUSk+ , and Ak+ , = where

&(Ai) = u&&+ bni + c. (3)
Table I.
Type of structure a(S) a b c
Plane rigid-jointed frame y(S) +3 -3 +3 DEGREE OF STATICAL INDETERMINACY AND
0 +3 -3 CROSSING NUMBER
v(S)
Space rigid-jointed frame y(S) +6 -6 +6
q(S) 0 +6 -6 The concept of statical indeterminacy is central to
Plane pin-jointed truss y(S) +1 -2 f3 a clear understanding of the mechanics of a skeletal
1(S) 0 +2 -3 structure, when analysed by means of the flexibility
Space ball-jointed truss y(S) +I -3 +6
method. In the following two theorems are presented
q(S) 0 +3 -6
for calculating the DSI of space structures using the
First Betti number of S b,(S) +1 -1 +1
crossing numbers of their planar drawings.
 Graphs and structures
Definitions
A drawing S* of a graph S is a mapping of S
into a surface. The nodes of S go into distinct nodes
of S*. A member and incidence nodes map into a
homeomorphic image of the closed interval [0, 1] with
the relevant node. A good drawing is one in which no
two members incident with a common node have a
common point, and no two members have more than
one point in common. A common point of two
members is a crossing. An optimal drawing in a given
surface is one which exhibits the least possible cross-
ing. The number of crossing points of S after drawing
on a plane or sphere, SP, is denoted by v(P). For
cases when the drawing is optimal, v(P) becomes the
crossing number
y(S) = 6b1(S) = 6 [Ri(SP) - v(P)], (4)
where RI(P) is the number of internal regions of Sp;
i.e. R,(P) = R(S*) - 1.
Theorem 2
Let S be a ball-jointed truss. Then
Y(S) = VW - K(W, (5)
where M,(P) is the number of members required
for full triangulation of SP. Simple proofs of these
theorems together with some useful results may be
found in Refs [31,32]. Obviously, it is advantageous
to have an optimal drawing of S, since the number of
countings becomes minimum in calculating its DSI.
For the case where v(P) = 0, the corresponding
mesh basis of S forms a suitable cycle basis of S.
However, surprisingly little is known about the cross-
ing number of S in general. For our purpose further
research is required to develop a systematic approach
for an optimal drawing or at least a drawing with
subminimal crossings.
FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURES
The stress resultant distribution due to a given
loading on a skeletal structure S, obtained by the
flexibility method can be given as
r=B,,P+B,X, (6)
where $P is any particular solution satisfying equi-
librium with the imposed loads, and B, X is a comp-
lementary solution formed from a maximum set of
independent self-equilibrating stress (SES) distri-
bution known as a statical basis. The number of
independent SESs is the same as the degree of statical
indeterminacy (DSI) of the structure, denoted by
Y(S).
The particular solution can be found from a pri-
mary structure corresponding to a shortest route tree
of S, in which the length of the path from each node
897
to the ground node is a minimum; transferring any
joint load to the ground with least number of mem-
bers with non-zero loading in the corresponding
column in B,,.
The compatibility equations yield
X = -(B;F,B,)-B;F,B,P, (7)
where F,,, defines the flexibility of the individual
disconnected members, and the matrix B, consists of
y(S) independent columns of SESs; the ith column
being associated with a unit value of X,. The stress
resultant r is then obtained by
r =[B,-B,(BiF,,,B,)-BfF,B,]P, (8)
where G = Bf F,,,B, is the flexibility matrix of the
structure.
The complementary solution can be formed on a
maximal set of independent y-cycles forming a gener-
alized cycle basis of the topological model of the
structure, which will also be denoted by S. On each
y-cycle 1, 3 or 6 SESs can be formed, depending on
whether S is a truss, planar frame or a space frame,
respectively. For an efficient flexibility analysis, G
should be sparse, narrowly banded and well con-
ditioned. In this paper only the sparseness of G is
studied. Bandwidth of G can be reduced by ordering
the selected Y-cycles.
Embedding for selecting cycle bases
In order to form B, matrix for frames, a cycle basis
of S should be generated. Obviously for efficient
solution, the elements of the selected basis should be
as localized as possible, in order to provide maximal
sparsity for the flexibility matrix G.
Main idea
The cycle selection procedure in this section uses
the concept of embedding the geometric realization of
S into another polyhedron whose dissection has
dimension equal to two. This concept originates from
the planar graphs embedded in IR*, in which the cycle
bounding the finite regions form an efficient basis
(known as a mesh basis) for the first cycle group
z, (S, R).
The object is to extend this approach to embedding
S on polyhedra and manifolds with certain proper-
ties. These properties are measured by using the
homology groups H,(K, R) of the underlying com-
plexes, which measure, roughly speaking, the number
of independent p-dimensional holes of K. In other
words, it measures the extent to which K has non-
bounding p-cycles.
A two-dimensional polyhedron embedding
Let S be the mathematical model of a structure
which is a simple graph (l-complex). The underlying
polyhedron or geometric realization of S is often
denoted by S, however, in this paper it will be shown
898 A. KAVEH
by S. An embedding f :S --) P is a homeomorphism
of S into the polyhedron P. An embedding fis called
a 2-cell embedding if the components of [P -f(S)]
are all 2-cells. If the 2-cells are regular, then embed-
ding is called a regular 2-cell embedding. Let f(S) be
dissected into a l-complex isomorphic to the dissec-
tion of S. The f(S) and the components [P -f(S)]
form a dissection of P into a two-dimensional cell
complex K.
Admissible embeddings
The cycles bounding the 2-cells of K are known as
regional cycles. An admissible embedding f of S is
one for which the regional cycles form a set of b,(S)
independent cycles from Z,(K, R). The necessary and
sufficient condition for a 2-cell embedding f : S + P
to be admissible are that the homology groups with
real coefficients of P are trivial [ll]. In the case of
2-cell embedding, this condition holds when first and
second Betti number of K be zero. Using algebraic
topology the admissibility condition can be stated as
follows: the necessary and sufficient condition for
f : S - P to be admissible is that the corresponding
K be acyclic. A regular complex K is called acyclic if
all homology groups of K are trivial. Equivalently,
any cycle of Z,(K, R) bounds in K; i.e.
Z,(K, R) = B,(K, R). It is easy to show that a con-
tractible complex is acyclic, hence a contractible
embedding is admissible. If K is collapsible, then it is
obviously contractible. Thus a collapsible embedding
is also admissible.
Modified manifold embedding
Edmonds permutation technique provides a
method for a 2-cell embedding of S in an orientable
2-manifold M. The choice of vertex permutations in
this method is taken arbitrary, which may lead to a
manifold with an unnecessarily large genus. In order
to reduce the genus of M, Duke [33] has developed
a reduction technique for transforming a 2-cell
embedding M into N, where y(N) = y(M) - 1.
Youngs [34] has developed an algorithm for a mini-
mal embedding by considering all the possible sets of
vertex permutations of S leading to genus of S. This
algorithm is very lengthy and cannot be used as a
practical method. Kaveh [35] developed a practical
method in which the vertex permutations are deter-
mined during the process of embedding S. However,
this algorithm does not always lead to a minimal
embedding.
A different approach may also be used based on an
intutive regular embedding of S. For an embedding
f : S --) A4 which dissects polyhedron M into a 2-com-
plex K. M is a manifold-if _
1. Each l-cell of K is incident with exactly two
2-cells.
2. All the 2-cells and 1-cell of K having a particu-
lar O-cell as a face can be ordered in a sequence
so that the consecutive cells are incident.
3. K can be oriented so that y zi = 0, where zi
is a regional cycle.
If M is manifold, then b,(K) = 2, where the genus of
M and b, (K) = 1. Thus f is not admissible, but can
be modified by adding two appropriate fillings of
order 2 and one performation of order 2, to satisfy
the admissibility condition for embedding.
As an example, Fig. 6 shows a hollow box S
embedded on a sphere with one handle, i.e. a torus.
Modifications are made by two proper fillings [15, 191
and one perforation (A) of order 2.
Thirty cycles of length 3 and two cycles of length
4 are selected as a minimal cycle basis of S. However,
for multi-member complex structure this method is
by no means practicable.
In a manifold embedding, the quality of selected
cycle basis depends upon the genus of the manifold
on which S is embedded. Thus it is ideal to have a
minimal embedding. Again little is known about
an efficient approach to carry out this type of
embedding.
Embedding S on a union of disks
S can be considered as the union of some planar
connected non-separable subgraphs of S. The process
of embedding as follows:
Step 1. Identify a planar subgraph S, and embed it
on a disk dl whose dissection K, is isomor-
phic to S,.
Step 2. The second subgraph S, is identified such
that the corresponding K2 has a 2-cell with
a free l-face and 1K, 101K2 1is a connected
subspace of the frontier of d,.
Step 3. The process of Step 2 is continued and at ith
step K, is joined to K- = Uj; / K, with K,
having a free l-face and 1KiI fll K- 1 is a
connected subspace of the frontier of (ii.
Obviously K\ K-.
The process is terminated when all l-cells of S are
embedded in K = UJ=, K,, which is collapsible, since
K=KJ\Kq-\...\K\...K=K,.
It is ideal to embed S in a complex K with
minimum number of disks. This minimum number of
disks for all possible collapsible embedding is an
invariant of S, known as the thickness of S. Hence
I
Fig. 6. S embedded on a modified manifold.
 Graphs and structures
embedding should be performed so that q is the same
as the thickness of S. Again only partial results are
available about the thickness of graphs. Any system-
atic approach for embedding on a minimum number
of disks should be of advantage for reducing the
overlaps of the cycles.
An expansion process for cycle selection
A major difficulty in the formation of a collapsible
complex has been its automation. Thus a reverse
approach, namely an expansion process has been
adopted by Kaveh [36]. This method starts from a
specified node and generates a minimal cycle on an
edge incident on this node. The cycle C, of minimal
length is formed, which is connected to C, and C, UC,
is collapsible. The process is continued until b,(S)
independent cycles are selected. The independence
check imposes restrictions such that the collapsibility
of c,uc,lJ . . . UC,,,, is maintained. This approach is
a greedy type algorithm which embeds S on a col-
lapsible set of disks. Obviously the number of disks
will be bounded by the first Betti number and the
thickness of the graph. The above method is order
dependent like many other combinatorial algorithms
and starting node influences the total length of the
selected cycles. Thus, further improvements have
been needed to improve the results by allowing the
selection of disjoint cycles (disjoint disks) [36]. These
algorithms are successfully implemented and efficient
generation of cycle bases has become feasible [27]. In
the above approaches, the total length of cycles of a
basis, is reduced in order to decrease the overlaps of
the cycles. However, such a basis, in general, does not
lead to a cycle adjacency matrix D of maximal
sparsity. A direct method for maximizing the sparsity
of D is recently developed in [26]. For this purpose
weights are assigned to edges of S indicating the
length and the number of minimal cycles which can
be generated on each edge. Restrictions are imposed
on the selection process to generate cycles of least
overlaps, often leading to optimal cycle bases. Re-
cently, Kaveh [35] studied special cases in relation
with minimal-optimal cycle bases. However, before
developing methods for finding the genus and thick-
ness of a graph, no general approach seems to
become feasible.
GENERALIZATION OF SOME CONCEPTS FROM
GRAPH THEORY
For rigid-jointed frames y(S) = 1(16,(S), I++being 3
or 6 depending on whether S is a planar or a space
frame. The concepts of graph theory are directly
applicable to this kind of skeletal structure. However,
for planar or space trusses y(S) can not be expressed
as B&(S), and most of the concepts should be
generalized. In the following certain definitions of this
kind are presented, which are suitable to all kinds of
skeletal structures.
899
Definition 1
Si is called elementary if every subgraph Si c Si
(different from a single node) satisfying ~(3;) < 0,
where Si is any component of Si. A connected
subgraph T of S is called a y-tree of S if it can be
formed by joining its elementary subgraphs S,,
s,,... , S, (except a single node) such that
(a) Y(S, ) = 0
(b) y(S,) = y(Ai), for i = 2,3, . . . ,p. (9)
From (2) it follows that y(T) = y(U;, , Si) = 0. If T
contains all the nodes of S, it will be a spanning y-tree
of S. The members of S which are not included in T,
are called the y-chords of T.
Dejinition 2
A removable subgraph S, of Si is an elementary
subgraph the removal of which leaves the DSI un-
changed, i.e. y(Si\S,) = y(S). A y-tree of S contain-
ing two chosen nodes which has no removable
subgraph is called a y-path of S between these two
nodes. A connected subgraph C, of S with y(C,) = a
which has no removable subgraph is termed a y-cycle
of S. The total number of members of C, is taken as
its length. Obviously the union of T and each y-chord
contains a y-cycle and it becomes a y-cycle after the
removal of its removable subgraphs.
Definition 3
A maximal set of independent y-cycles of S is called
a generalized cycle basis of S and it contains y(S)/a
of y-cycles.
Definition 4
In an expansion process if subgraphs S, be y-cycles
C, and
y(Ck+)=y(CkUCk+l)=y(Ck)+aP (10)
then C, + , is called an admissible y-cycle.
DeJnition 5
A y-cycle generated on a member mj, having the
shortest length, is called a minimal y-cycle on m,.
Dejinition 6
Let x(C) and x(D) denote the number of non-zero
members of y-cycle-edge incidence matrix and y-cycle
adjacency matrix of a y-cycle basis of S, respectively.
A generalized cycle basis corresponding to minimum
x(C) is called minimal and the one leading to
minimum x(D) is called optimal. When near mini-
mum sparsity is achieved, then the corresponding
bases are referred to as subminimal and suboptimal
generalized cycle bases.
900 A. KAVXH
ALGORITHM FOR THE FORMATION OF A
SUBOPTIMAL GENERALIZED CYCLE BASIS
The following algorithm which is based on the
above concepts and definitions, lead to the formation
of suboptimal generalized cycle bases.
Step 1. Select a minimal y-cycle on each member rni
of S, and assign its length as the weight pi
of mi.
Step 2. Generate the first y-cycle on the member of
smallest weight.
Step 3. Select minimal cycles on members in the
ascending order of their weights pi. This
process should be carried out as far as the
formation of minimal admissible y-cycles is
possible.
Step 4. If the number of selected y-cycles is less
than y (S)/a, then form an admissible y-
cycle having the least possible length on the
member of the least unused pi. This y-cycle
is subminimal, otherwise it would have been
selected at previous steps.
Step 5. Repeat Steps 3 and 4, generating admissible
minimal and subminimal y-cycles. Until
y(S)/a such cycles forming a suboptimal
generalized basis are selected.
This algorithm is general and covers all types of
skeletal structures. However, when y(S) = $6,(S),
then a generalized cycle basis becomes a cycle basis
of S, for selection of which an efficient method is
developed in [36]. For planar trusses, simplified
methods are developed which are more suitable from
programming point of view. Once an optimal or
suboptimal generalized cycle basis of S is generated,
matrices B, corresponding to highly sparse flexibility
matrix G can easily be formed.
ORDERING FOR BANDWIDTH REDUCTION
In order to reduce the bandwidth of the flexibility
matrices, the elements of the selected generalized
cycle bases should be ordered. In this section a simple
approach is presented for element ordering to reduce
the bandwidth of the flexibility matrices of skeletal
structures. This method can also be used for nodal
ordering of finite element models for reducing the
bandwidth of stiffness matrices or frontwidth in
frontal solution of equations.
Definition
The distance of d, of a node n, of S from a selected
node 0 is the length of the shortest path connecting
ni to 0. The distance number of an element of a
generalized cycle basis or a finite element C, from 0
is defined by one of the following:
(a) The distance of the nearest node of C, from 0,
denoted by d;.
(b) The distance of the furthest node of C, from 0,
denoted by df .
(c) The mean value of d; and dfk, i.e. )(d; + 4)/2 1.
(d) The sum of dZ + 1L(C,)/2 (, where Jo is the
length of C,.
(e) The mean value of the distances of the nodes
for C,, i.e.
Any of the above definitions can be used as the
distance number of an element of a generalized cycle
basis (GCB), or a finite element model (FEM).
Algorithm
Step 1. Order the nodes of S with a nodal number-
ing algorithm, e.g. with the algorithm given
in Ref. [37].
Step 2. Use the same starting node as in Step 1 to
generate an SRT and find the distance
number of the elements of the considered
GCB (FEM).
Step 3. Assign these distance numbers to the
nearest (furthest or any other appropriate
intermediate) nodes of the elements of the
GCB (FEM). In this process a node may
become the representative node of q el-
ements of the GCB (FEM). Then q different
(some may be equal) distance numbers will
be assigned to this node.
Step 4. Number these nodes in the ascending order
of their distance numbers. For equi-distant
nodes, the same sequence as the nodal num-
bering of Step 1 should be used, to effect the
connectivity properties of S.
Step 5. Order the elements of the GCB (FEM) with
the same numbers received by their repre-
sentative nodes. This provides an efficient
ordering for the elements of the considered
GCB (FEM).
REFERENCES
B. Langefors, Analysis of elastic structures by matrix
transformation with special regards to semi-monocoque
structures. J. Aero. Sci. 451-458 (1952). Algebraic
methods for the numerical analysis of build-up systems.
SAAB, TN38 (1956). Algebraic topology and elastic
networks. SAAB, TN49 (1961).
2. G. Kron, Diakoptic-piecewise solution of large-scale
system. A serial of twenty chapters, starting 7 June
1957, Electrical Journal, London (1957). Elastic struc-
tures from the point of view of topological network
theory. RAGG Memories 3, 329-337 (1962).
3 J. C. de C. Henderson, Topological aspects of structural
linear analysis. Aircr. Engng 32, l-5 (1960).
4. A. G. Samuelsson, Linear analysis of frame structures
by use of algebraic topology. Ph.D. thesis, Chalmers
Tekniska Hiigskola, Gdteborg (1962).
5. N. E. Wiberg, System analysis in structural mechanics.
Ph.D. thesis, Chalmers Tekniska Hdgskola, Gdteborg
(1970).
 Graphs and structures
6. H. M. Trent Isomorphisims between oriented linear
graphs and lumped physical systems. J. Acoust. Sot.
Am. 27, 500-515 (1955).
7. N. C. Lind, Analysis of structures by system theory.
Proc. ASCE ST2, l-21 (1962).
8. W. R. Spillers, Application of topology in structural
analvsis. Proc. ASCE ST4. 301-313 (1963).
9. F. L: Dimmagio, Statical indeterminacy and stability of
structures. Proc. ASCE 89, 63-75 (1963).
10. S. J. Fenves, Structural analysis by networks, matrices
and computers. Proc. ASCE STl, 199-221 (1966).
11. J. C. de C. Henderson and E. A. W. Maunder, A
problem in applied topology. J. Inst. Math. Applic. 5,
254-269 (1969).
12. A. Kaveh, Application of topology and matroid theory
to the analysis of structures. Ph.D. thesis, London
University (1974).
13. J. T. Oden and A. Neighbors, Network-topological
formulation of analysis of geometrically and materially
non-linear space frames. First Int. Conf. on Space
Structures, University of Surrey, Sept. 1966, (Edited by
R. M. Davis) Blackwell Scientific (1967).
14. S. J. Fenves and A. Gonzalez-Caro, Network topolog-
ical formulation of analysis and design of rigid-plastic
framed structures. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 3,
425-441 (1971).
15. R. K. Livesley, The automatic design of structural
frames. Quart. J. Mech. Appl. Math. 9, 257-269 (1956).
16. A. C. Cassell, An alternative method for finite element
analysis; a combinatorial approach to the flexibility
method. Proc. R. Sot. Lond. A352, 73-89 (1976).
17 Y. Shanghui and X. Guohua, The method of topology
graph theory for the finite element analysis. Proc.
Comput. Mech. 659-663 (1984).
18. G. Laman, On graphs and rigidity of plane skeletal
structures. J. Eng. Math. 331-340 (1970).
19. L. Lovriz and Y. Yemini, On generic rigidity in the
plane. SIAM J. Alg. Disc. Meth. 3 91-98 (1982).
20. K. Sughihara, On some problems in the design of
skeletal structures. SIAM J. Alg. Disc. Meth. 4,355-362
(1983).
21. A. Kaveh, A cominatorial study of the rigidity of planar
structures. Acta Mech. 62, 189-196 (1986).
CAS 4ol4-4
901
22. E. Cuthill and J. McKee. Reducing bandwidth of sparse
symmetric matrices. Proc. 24th Nat. Conf. kX4
152-172 (1962).
23. K. Y. Cheng,Note on minimizing the bandwidth of
sparse symmetric matrices. Computing 11, 27-30
(1973).
24. A. Kaveh, Multiple use of a shortest route tree for
ordering. Commun. Appl. Numer. Meth. 2, 213-215
(1986).
25. A. Kaveh, Ordering for bandwidth reduction. Comput.
Struct. 24, 413-420 (1986).
26. A. Kaveh. An efficient flexibility analysis of structures.
Comput. Struct. 22, 973-977 (lb86). -
27. A. Kaveh, An efficient program for generating cycle
bases for the flexibility analysis of structures. Commun.
Appl. Numer. Meth. 2, 339-344 (1986).
28. A. Kaveh, Suboptimal cycle bases of graphs for the
flexibility analysis of skeletal structures. Compur. Meth.
ADDI. Mech. Ennnz 71. 259-271 (1988).
29. A.i(aveh, A combmatorial optimization problem; opti-
mal generalized cycle bases. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech.
Engng 20, 39-52 (1979).
30. A. Kaveh, Statical bases for efficient flexibility analy-
sis of planar trusses. J. Strucf. Mech. 14, 475-488
(1986).
31. A. Kaveh, Topology and skeletal structures. ZAMM 68
347-353 (1988).
32. A. Kaveh, Planar drawings of space structures. Iranian
J. Sci. Tech. 14, (1988).
33. R. A. Duke, The genus, regional number and Betti
number of a graph, Canad. J. Math. 18, 817-822
(1966).
34. J. W. T. Youngs, Minimal embedding and genus of a
graph. J. Math. Mech. 12, 303-315 (1963).
35. A. Kaveh, On minimal and optimal cycle bases of
graphs for sparse flexibility matrices. ZAMM 69
T212-T214 (1989).
36. A. Kaveh, Improved cycle bases for the flexibility
analysis of structures. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech.
Engng 9, 267-272 (1976).
37. A. Kaveh, A connectivity coordinate system for node
and element ordering. Proc. Civil-Comp 89, London, 1,
149-155 (1989).