Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 235–247 | Cite as

Shape detection with vision: implementing shape grammars in conceptual design

  • Iestyn Jowers
  • David C. Hogg
  • Alison McKay
  • Hau Hing Chau
  • Alan de Pennington
Original Paper

Abstract

Despite more than 30 years of research, shape grammar implementations have limited functionality. This is largely due to the difficult problem of subshape detection. Previous research has addressed this problem analytically and has proposed solutions that directly compare geometric representations of shapes. Typically, such work has concentrated on shapes composed of limited geometry, for example straight lines or parametric curves, and as a result, their application has been restricted. The problem of general subshape detection has not been resolved. In this paper, an alternative approach is proposed, in which subshape detection is viewed as a problem of object recognition, a sub-domain of computer vision. In particular, a general method of subshape detection is introduced based on the Hausdorff distance. The approach is not limited in terms of geometry, and any shapes that can be represented in an image can be compared according to the subshape relation. Based on this approach, a prototype shape grammar system has been built in which the geometry of two-dimensional shapes is not restricted. The system automates the discovery of subshapes in a shape, enabling the implementation of shape rules in a shape grammar. Application of the system is illustrated via consideration of shape exploration in conceptual design. The manipulations of sketched design concepts are formalised by shape rules that reflect the types of shape transformations employed by designers when sketching.

Keywords

Shape detection Shape grammars Object recognition Hausdorff distance Conceptual design Computational design 

References

  1. Brown KN, Cagan J (1997) Optimized process planning by generative simulated annealing. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 11(3):219–235Google Scholar
  2. Canny J (1986) A computational approach to edge detection. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 8(6):679–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chau HH, Chen X, McKay A, de Pennington A (2004) Evaluation of a 3D shape grammar implementation. In: Gero JS (ed) Design computing and cognition ‘04. Kluwer, Boston, pp 357–376Google Scholar
  4. Earl CF (1997) Shape boundaries. Environ Plan B Plan Des 24(5):669–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Forsyth DA, Ponce J (2003) Computer vision: a modern approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  6. Huttenlocher DP, Klanderman GA, Rucklidge WJ (1993) Comparing images using the Hausdorff distance. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 15(9):850–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jowers I (2006) Computation with curved shapes: towards freeform shape generation in design. PhD Thesis, The Open UniversityGoogle Scholar
  8. Jowers I, Earl C (2010) The construction of curved shapes. Environ Plan B Plan Des 37(1):42–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jowers I, Prats M, Lim S, McKay A, Garner S, Chase S (2008) Supporting reinterpretation in computer-aided conceptual design. In: Alvarado C, Cani M-P (eds) Sketch-based interfaces and modeling 2008, Eurographics symposium proceedings, pp 151–158Google Scholar
  10. Koning H, Eizenberg J (1981) The language of the prairie—Frank Lloyd Wright’s Prairie houses. Environ Plan B Plan Des 8(3):295–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Krishnamurti R (1981) The construction of shapes. Environ Plan B Plan Des 8(1):5–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krishnamurti R (1992) The arithmetic of maximal planes. Environ Plan B Plan Des 19(4):431–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lim S, Prats M, Jowers I, Chase S, Garner S, McKay A (2009) Shape exploration in design: formalising and supporting a transformational process. Int J Archit Comput 6(4):415–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McCormack JP, Cagan J (2006) Curve-based shape matching: supporting designers’ hierarchies through parametric shape recognition of arbitrary geometry. Environ Plan B Plan Des 33(4):523–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McKay A, Jowers I, Chau HH, de Pennington A, Hogg DC (2008) Computer aided design: an early shape synthesis system. In: Yan X-T, Eynard B, Ion WJ (eds) Global design to gain a competitive edge: an holistic and collaborative design approach based on computational tools. Springer, London, pp 3–12Google Scholar
  16. Pinz A (2005) Object categorization. Found Trends Comput Graph Vis 1(4):255–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Prats M, Earl CF (2006) Exploration through drawings in product design. In: Gero JS (ed) Design computing and cognition ‘06. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 82–102Google Scholar
  18. Prats M, Garner SW, Lim S, Jowers I, Chase S (2009) Transforming shape in design: observations from studies of sketching. Des Stud 30(5):503–520Google Scholar
  19. Rucklidge W (1996) Efficient visual recognition using the Hausdorff distance. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schön DA, Wiggins G (1992) Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Des Stud 13(2):135–156Google Scholar
  21. Stiny G (1991) The algebras of design. Res Eng Des 2(3):171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stiny G (1994) Shape rules—closure, continuity, and emergence. Environ Plan B Plan Des 21(7):s49–s78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stiny G (2006) Shape: talking about seeing and doing. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Stiny G, Gips J (1972) Shape grammars and the generative specification of painting and sculpture. In: Freiman CV (ed) Information processing 71, North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1460–1465Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iestyn Jowers
    • 1
  • David C. Hogg
    • 2
  • Alison McKay
    • 1
  • Hau Hing Chau
    • 1
  • Alan de Pennington
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.School of ComputingUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations