Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:29:12.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Creating cross-over vehicles: Defining and combining vehicle classes using shape grammars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2006

SETH ORSBORN ,
JONATHAN CAGAN ,
RICHARD PAWLICKI  and
RANDALL C. SMITH
SETH ORSBORN
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
JONATHAN CAGAN
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
RICHARD PAWLICKI
Affiliation:
Research & Development Division, General Motors, Detroit, Michigan, USA
RANDALL C. SMITH
Affiliation:
Research & Development Division, General Motors, Detroit, Michigan, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the push for new vehicle designs, the distinctions between vehicle classes are quickly becoming blurred. We use shape grammars to quantify the differences between vehicle classes through the application of class-specific rules and the constraint of rule applications to within parametric ranges determined for each class. This allows for the development of new vehicle forms that clearly fall within a class or purposefully cross over the boundaries of classes and mix rules and ranges to create unique and interesting cross-over vehicles.

Keywords

Cross-Over VehicleDesign LanguageShape GrammarsVehicle Design
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , August 2006 , pp. 217 - 246
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

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

Agarwal, M. & Cagan, J. (1998). A blend of different tastes: the language of coffeemakers. Environment and Planning B, 25(2), 20–226.Google 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.Google Scholar
Knight, T. (2003). Computing with emergence. Environment and Planning B, 30(1), 125–155.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, R. (1980). The arithmetic of shapes. Environment and Planning B, 7(4), 463–484.Google Scholar
McCormack, J. & Cagan, J. (2002). Supporting designer's hierarchies through parametric shape recognition. Environment and Planning B, 29(6), 913–931.Google Scholar
McCormack, J., Cagan, J., & Vogel, C. (2004). Speaking the Buick language: capturing, understanding, and exploring brand identity with shape grammars. Design Studies, 25(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Pugliese, M. & Cagan, J. (2001). Capturing a rebel: modeling the Harley-Davidson brand through a motorcycle shape grammar. Research in Engineering Design, 13(1), 13–156.Google Scholar
Stiny, G. (1977). Ice-ray: a note on the generation of Chinese lattice designs. Environment and Planning B, 4(1), 89–98.Google Scholar
Stiny, G. (1980). Introduction to shape and shape grammars. Environment and Planning B, 7(3), 343–351.Google Scholar
Stiny, G. (1992). Weights. Environment and Planning B, 19(4), 413–430.Google Scholar
Stiny, G. & Mitchell, W.J. (1978). The Palladian grammar. Environment and Planning B, 5(1), 5–18.Google Scholar