Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:48:42.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A graph-theoretic implementation of the Rabo-de-Bacalhau transformation grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2016

Tiemen Strobbe ,
Sara Eloy ,
Pieter Pauwels ,
Ruben Verstraeten ,
Ronald De Meyer  and
Jan Van Campenhout
Tiemen Strobbe*
Affiliation:
Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Sara Eloy
Affiliation:
Department of Architecture and Urbanism, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL, ISTAR-IUL), Lisbon, Portugal
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: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Shape grammars are rule-based formalisms for the specification of shape languages. Most of the existing shape grammars are developed on paper and have not been implemented computationally thus far. Nevertheless, the computer implementation of shape grammar is an important research question, not only to automate design analysis and generation, but also to extend the impact of shape grammars toward design practice and computer-aided design tools. In this paper, we investigate the implementation of shape grammars on a computer system, using a graph-theoretic representation. In particular, we describe and evaluate the implementation of the existing Rabo-de-Bacalhau transformation grammar. A practical step-by-step approach is presented, together with a discussion of important findings noticed during the implementation and evaluation. The proposed approach is shown to be both feasible and valuable in several aspects: we show how the attempt to implement a grammar on a computer system leads to a deeper understanding of that grammar, and might result in the further development of the grammar; we show how the proposed approach is embedded within a commercial computer-aided design environment to make the shape grammar formalism more accessible to students and practitioners, thereby increasing the impact of grammars on design practice; and the proposed step-by-step implementation approach has shown to be feasible for the implementation of the Rabo-de-Bacalhau transformation grammar, but can also be generalized using different ontologies for the implementation.

Keywords

Architectural DesignGraph GrammarImplementationShape Grammar
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 30 , Issue 2: Design Computing and Cognition (DCC'14) , May 2016 , pp. 138 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Aksamija, A., Yue, K., Kim, H., Grobler, F., & Krishnamurti, R. (2010). Integration of knowledge-based and generative systems for building characterization and prediction. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 24(1), 3–16.Google Scholar
Chase, S. (2002). A model for user interaction in grammar-based design systems. Automation in Construction 11(2), 161–172.Google Scholar
Chase, S. (2010). Shape grammar implementations: the last 35 years. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Design Computing and Cognition, Stuttgart, July 10–14.Google Scholar
Correia, R., Duarte, J.P., & Leitao, A. (2010). MALAG: a discursive grammar interpreter for the online generation of mass customized housing. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Design Computing and Cognition, Stuttgart, July 10–14.Google Scholar
Duarte, J. (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
Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., & Liston, K. (2008). BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modelling for Owners, Managers, Architects, Engineers, Contractors, and Fabricators. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., & Taentzer, G. (2006). Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Eloy, S. (2012). A transformation grammar-based methodology for housing rehabilitation: meeting contemporary functional and ICT requirements. PhD Thesis. TU Lisbon.Google Scholar
Eloy, S., & Duarte, J. (2014). Inferring a shape grammar: translating designer's knowledge. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design Analysis and Manufacturing 28(2), 153–168.Google Scholar
Ertelt, C., & Shea, K. (2010). Shape grammar implementation for machine planning. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Design Computing and Cognition, Stuttgart, July 10–14.Google Scholar
Fitzhorn, P. (1990). Formal graph languages of shape. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design Analysis and Manufacturing 4(3), 151–163.Google Scholar
Flemming, U. (1987). More than the sum of parts: the grammar of Queen Anne houses. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 14(3), 323–350.Google Scholar
Geiß, R., Batz, G.V., Grund, D., Hack, S., & Szalkowski, A. (2006). GrGen: a fast SPO-based graph rewriting tool. Proc. IGCT 2006, LNCS, Vol. 4178, pp. 383–397. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Gips, J. (1999). Computer implementation of shape grammars. Proc. NSF/MIT Workshop on Shape Computation, Cambridge, MA, April.Google Scholar
Granadeiro, V., Duarte, J., Correia, J., & Leal, V. (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.Google Scholar
Grasl, T. (2012). Transformational palladians. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 39(1), 83–95.Google Scholar
Grasl, T. (2013). On shapes and topologies: graph theoretic representations of shapes and shape computations. PhD Thesis. TU Vienna.Google Scholar
Grasl, T., & Economou, A. (2013). From topologies to shapes: parametric shape grammars implemented by graphs. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 40(5), 905–922.Google Scholar
Heisserman, J. (1994). Generative geometric design. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 14(2), 37–45.Google Scholar
Helms, B., & Shea, K. (2012). Computational synthesis of product architectures based on object-oriented graph grammars. Journal of Mechanical Design 134(2), 1–14.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.Google Scholar
Jowers, J., & Earl, C. (2011). Implementation of curved shape grammars. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 38(4), 616–635.Google Scholar
Jowers, I., Hogg, D.C., McKay, A., & de Pennington, A. (2010). Shape detection with vision: implementing shape grammars in conceptual design. Research in Engineering Design 21(4), 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, T. (1999). Shape grammars: six types. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26(1), 15–31.Google Scholar
Knight, T. (2003). Computing with emergence. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 30(1), 125–155.Google Scholar
Koning, H., & Eizenberg, J. (1981). Frank Lloyd Wright's prairie houses. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 8(3), 295–323.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, R. (1981). The construction of shapes. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 8(1), 5–40.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, R., & Stouffs, R. (1993). Spatial grammars: motivation, comparison, and new results. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Computer-Aided Architectural Design Futures (CAADFutures), pp. 57–74. Amsterdam: North–Holland.Google Scholar
Li, E., I-Kang, A., Chau, H.H., & Chen, L. (2009). A prototype system for developing two- and three-dimensional shape grammars. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia, pp. 717–716, Taiwan, April 22–25.Google 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.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.Google Scholar
Steadman, P. (1976). Graph-theoretic representation of architectural arrangement. In The Architecture of Form (March, L., Ed.), pp. 94–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stiny, G. (1977). Ice-ray: a note on Chinese lattice designs. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 4(1), 89–98.Google Scholar
Stiny, G. (1980). Introduction to shape and shape grammars. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 7(3), 343–351.Google Scholar
Stiny, G. (1991). The algebras of design. Research in Engineering Design 2(3), 171–181.Google Scholar
Stiny, G. (2006). Shape: Talking About Seeing and Doing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stiny, G., & Gips, J. (1971). Shape grammars and the generative specification of painting and sculpture. Proc. IFIP Congr. (Freiman, C.V., Ed.), pp. 1460–1465. Amsterdam: North–Holland.Google Scholar
Stiny, G., & Mitchell, W.J. (1978). The Palladian grammar. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 5(1), 5–18.Google Scholar
Strobbe, T., Pauwels, P., Verstraeten, R., De Meyer, R., & Van Campenhout, J. (2015). Toward a visual approach in the exploration of shape grammars. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design Analysis and Manufacturing 29(4), 503–521.Google Scholar
Taentzer, G. (2004). AGG: A Graph Transformation Environment for Modeling and Validation of Software, LNCS, Vol. 3062, pp. 446–453. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Tapia, M. (1999). A visual implementation of a shape grammar system. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26(1), 59–73.Google Scholar
Trescak, T., Esteva, M., & Rodriguez, I. (2012). A shape grammar interpreter for rectilinear forms. Computer-Aided Design 44(7), 657–670.Google Scholar
Woodbury, R., & Burrow, A. (2006). Whither design space? Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 20(2), 63–82.Google Scholar
Woodbury, R., Radford, A.D., Taplin, P.N., & Coppins, S.A. (1992). Tartan worlds: a generative symbol grammar system. Proc. ACADIA '92, pp. 211–220. Charleston, SC: Clemson University Press.Google Scholar
Wortmann, T. (2013). Representing Shapes as Graphs: A Feasible Approach for the Computer Implementation of Parametric Visual Calculating. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Yue, K., & Krishnamurti, R. (2014). A paradigm for interpreting tractable shape grammars. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 41(1), 110–137.Google Scholar