Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:34:14.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward a visual approach in the exploration of shape grammars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2015

Tiemen Strobbe ,
Pieter Pauwels ,
Ruben Verstraeten ,
Ronald De Meyer  and
Jan Van Campenhout
Tiemen Strobbe*
Affiliation:
Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Pieter Pauwels
Affiliation:
Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Ruben Verstraeten
Affiliation:
Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Ronald De Meyer
Affiliation:
Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Jan Van Campenhout
Affiliation:
Department of Electronics and Information Systems, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
*
Reprint requests to: Tiemen Strobbe, Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Ghent University, J. Plateaustraat 22, Ghent 9000, Belgium. E-mail: tiemen.strobbe@ugent.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The concept of shape grammars has often been proposed to improve or support creative design processes. Shape grammar implementations have the potential to both automate parts of the design process and allow exploration of design alternatives. In many of the existing implementations, the main focus is either on capturing the rationale of a particular existing grammar or on allowing designers to develop a new grammar. However, little attention is typically given to the actual representation of the design space that can be explored in the interface of the implementation. With such representation, a shape grammar implementation could properly support designers who are still in the process of designing and may not yet have a clear shape grammar in mind. In this article, an approach and a proof-of-concept software system is proposed for a shape grammar implementation that provides a visual and interactive way to support design space exploration in a creative design process. We describe the method by which this software system can be used and focus on how designers can interact with the exploration process. In particular, we point out how the proposed approach realizes several important amplification strategies to support design space exploration.

Keywords

Architectural DesignDesign Space ExplorationShape GrammarUser Interface
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 29 , Special Issue 4: Generative and evolutionary design exploration , November 2015 , pp. 503 - 521
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Akin, O. (2006). The whittled design space. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 20(2), 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charbonneau, N., & Tidafi, T. (2013). Enabling the architectural designer to move within a graph of interconnected decisions: a case study dealing with a parametric object. International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology 3(1), 42–51.Google Scholar
Chase, S. (2002). A model for user interaction in grammar-based design systems. Automation in Construction 11(2), 161–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies 3(4), 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duarte, J.P. (2005). A discursive grammar for customizing mass housing: the case of Siza's houses at Malagueira. Automation in Construction 14(2), 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzhorn, P. (1990). Formal graph language of shape. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 4(3), 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S. (1994). Toward a model of exploration in computer-aided-design. In Formal Design Methods for CAD (Gero, J.S., & Tyugu, E., Eds.), pp. 315–336. Amsterdam: North–Holland.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S., & Kazakov, V.A. (1996). An exploration-based evolutionary model of a generative design process. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 11(3), 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S., Neville, D., & Radford, A.D. (1983). Energy in context: a multicriteria model for building design. Building and Environment 18(3), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geyer, P. (2008). Multidisciplinary grammars supporting design optimization of buildings. Research in Engineering Design 18(4), 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gips, J. (1999). Computer implementation of shape grammars. Workshop on Shape Computation, MIT.Google Scholar
Goel, A.K., & Craw, S. (2006). Design, innovation and case-based reasoning. Knowledge Engineering Review 20(3), 271–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (2005). How good are good ideas? Correlates of design creativity. Design Studies 26(6), 593–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (2006). Quo vadis, design space explorer? Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 20(2), 105–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granadeiro, V., Duarte, J., Correia, R., & Vitor, M.L. (2013). Building envelope shape design in early stages of the design process: integrating architectural design systems and energy simulation. Automation in Construction 32, 196–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grasl, T., & Economou, A. (2012). Transformational Palladians. Environment and Planning B 39(1), 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grasl, T., & Economou, A. (2013). From topologies to shapes: parametric shape grammars implemented by graphs. Environment and Planning B 40(5), 905–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grasl, T., & Economou, A. (2014). Toward controlled grammars—approaches to automating rule selection for shape grammars. Proc. 32th eCAADe Conf. (Thompson, E.M., Ed.), pp. 357–363, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, September 12–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heisserman, J. (1994). Generative geometric design. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 14(2), 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoisl, F., & Shea, K. (2011). An interactive, visual approach to developing and applying parametric three-dimensional spatial grammars. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 25(4), 333–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, J.C., & Thornley, D. (1962). The Conference on Design Methods. Proc. Conf. Systematic and Intuitive Methods in Engineering, Industrial Design, Architecture and Communications. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Knight, T.W. (2003). Computing with emergence. Environment and Planning B 30(1), 125–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koning, H., & Eizenberg, J. (1981). The language of the prairie: Frank Lloyd Wright's prairie houses. Environment and Planning B 8(3), 295–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnamurti, R. (2006). Explicit design space? Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 20(2), 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, B. (2005). Oracles, draughtsmen, and agents: the nature of knowledge and creativity in design and the role of IT. Automation in Construction 14(3), 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, M., & Poon, J. (1996). Modelling design exploration as co-evolution. Microcomputers in Civil Engineering 11(3), 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, A., Chase, S., Shea, K., & Chau, H.H. (2012). Spatial grammar implementation: from theory to useable software. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 26(2), 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papanikolaou, M., & Tunçer, B. (1999). The Fake.Space experience—exploring new spaces. Proc. 17th eCAADe Conf., pp. 395–402. Liverpool: University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
Radford, A.D., & Gero, J.S. (1980). On optimization in computer aided architectural design. Building and Environment 15(2), 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A.D., & Gero, J.S. (1988). Design by Optimization in Architecture, Building, and Construction. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Science 4(2), 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russel, S., & Norvig, P. (2010). Artificial Intelligence—A Modern Approach. New York: Prentice–Hall.Google Scholar
Schaefer, J., & Rudolph, S. (2005). Satellite design by design grammars. Aerospace Science and Technology 9(1), 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Shea, K., & Cagan, J. (1999). Languages and semantics of grammatical discrete structures. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 13(4), 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review 63(2), 129–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simon, H.A. (1957). Models of Man: Social and Rational. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence 4(3–4), 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiny, G. (2007). Shape—Talking About Seeing and Doing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stiny, G., & Gips, J. (1972). Shape grammars and the generative specification of painting and sculpture. Information Processing 71, 1460–1465.Google Scholar
Stiny, G., & Mitchell, W.J. (1978). The Palladian grammar. Environment and Planning B 5, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taentzer, G., & Rudolf, C. (1998). AGG-approach: language and tool environment. In Graph Grammar Handbook 2: Specification and Programming (Rozenberg, G., Ed.). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Tapia, M.A. (1999). A visual implementation of a shape grammar system. Environment and Planning B 26(1), 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tidafi, T., Charbonneau, N., & Araghi, S.K. (2011). Backtracking decisions within a design process: a way of enhancing the designers thought process and creativity. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Computer Aided Architectural Design (Pierre Leclercq, A.H., & Martin, G., Ed.), pp. 573–587, Liege, Belgium, July 4–8.Google Scholar
Trescak, T., Esteva, M., & Rodriguez, I. (2012). A shape grammar interpreter for rectilinear forms. Computer-Aided Design 44(7), 657–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turrin, M., von Buelow, P., & Stouffs, R. (2011). Design explorations of performance driven geometry in architectural design using parametric modeling and genetic algorithms. Advanced Engineering Informatics 25(4), 656–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodbury, R., & Burrow, A. (2006). Whither design space? Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 20(2), 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yue, K., & Krishnamurti, R. (2014). A paradigm for interpreting tractable shape grammars. Environment and Planning B 41(1), 110–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar