Raising the i-Factor: Bridging Parametric Shape and Parametric Design

Conference paper

Abstract

Using the artifice of the i-device as an analogue, this paper examines issues in making design software more accessible through projects on computer-aided sustainable design, panelization for design and fabrication, and parametric shape grammar interpretation. In each case accessibility is improved by transitioning design from a representational concern to one that is more process oriented through the use of localized semantics.

Notes

Acknowledgement

The work reported here would be impossible without the contributions of my graduate students Tajin Biswas, Tsung-hsien Wang, Peng-hui Wan, Kui Yue and Varvara Toulkeridou.

References

  1. 1.
    Autodesk (2003) Building information modeling for sustainable design. www.federalnewsradio.com/pdfs/BuildingInformationModelingforSubstainableDesign-white%20paper.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2010
  2. 2.
    http://www.usgbc.org/LEED. Accessed 10 May 2010
  3. 3.
    Krygiel E, Nies B (2008) Green BIM successful sustainable design with building information modeling. Wiley, IndianaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biswas T, Krishnamurti R (2009) Framework for supporting sustainable design. Innovations for building and construction. Europia, Paris, pp 373–386Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    USGBC (2006) New construction and renovation guide V2.2, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Echols S (2007) Artful Rainwater Design in the Urban Landscape. J Green Build 2(4):103–122CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    www.rhino3d.com. Accessed 12 May 2010
  9. 9.
    www.grasshopper3d.com. Accessed 12 May 2010
  10. 10.
    www.microsoft.com/NET. Accessed 12 May 2010
  11. 11.
    Kolarevic B (2005a) Architecture in the digital age: design and manufacturing. Taylor & FrancisGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kolarevic B, Klinger K (2008) Manufacturing material effects: rethinking design and making in architecture. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pottmann H, Asperl A, Hofer M, Kilian A, Bentley D (2007a) Architectural Geometry. Bentley InstituteGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pottmann H, Liu Y, Wallner J, Bobenko A, Wang W (2007b) Geometry of multi-layer freeform structures for architecture. ACM Trans Graph 26:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Hauer E (2007) Erwin Hauer: continua-architectural screen and walls. Princeton ArchitecturalGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hadid Z (2008) Schematic design report for next-gene architecture museum. National Chiao-Tung University, HsinchuGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Woodbury R (2010) Elements of parametric design. Taylor & FrancisGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shimada K, Gossard DC (1995) Bubble mesh: automated triangular meshing of non-manifold geometry by sphere packing. ACM third symposium on solid modeling and applications, pp 409–419Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kolarevic B (2005b) Performative architecture: beyond instrumentality. Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stiny G (1980) Introduction to shape and shape grammars. Environ Plan B 7: 343–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stiny G (2006) Shape: talking about seeing and doing. MITGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stiny G, Gips J (1972) Shape grammars and the generative specification of painting and sculpture. The best computer papers of 1971. Auerbach, Philadelphia, pp 125–35Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gips J (1975) Shape grammars and their uses: artificial perception, shape generation and computer aesthetics. Birkhaüser, BaselCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stiny G (1975) Pictorial and formal aspects of shape and shape grammars and aesthetic systems. Birkhaüser, BaselCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stiny G (1977) Ice-ray: a note on Chinese lattice designs. Environ Plan B 4:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stiny G (1991) The algebras of design. Res Eng Design 2:171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stiny G (1992) Weights. Environ Plan B 19:413–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Taylor RG (1998) Models of computation and formal languages. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Müller P, Wonka P, Haegler S, Ulmer A, van Gool L (2006) Procedural modeling of buildings. ACM Trans Graph 25(3):614–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Müller P, Zeng G, Wonka P, van Gool L (2007) Image-based procedural modeling of facades. ACM Trans Graph 26(3):9 (article 85)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Watson B, Müller P, Veryovka O, Fuller A, Wonka P, Sexton C (2008) Procedural urban modeling in practice. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 28:18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Weber B, Müller P, Wonka P, GROSS M (2009) Interactive geometric simulation of 4D cities. Comput Graph Forum 28(2):481–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chau HH, Chen X, McKay A, de Pennington A (2004) Evaluation of a 3D shape grammar implementation. Design Computing and Cognition ’04, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 357–376Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    McCormack JP, Cagan J (2002) Supporting designers’ hierarchies through parametric shape recognition. Environ Plan B 29:913–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yue K (2009) Computation-friendly shape grammars: with application to the determination of interior layout of buildings from image data. PhD Thesis. School of Architecture, Carnegie Mellon UniversityGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Aksamija A, Yue K, Kim H, Grobler F, Krishnamurti R (2010) Integration of knowledge-based and generative systems for building characterization and prediction. AIEDAM 24:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shape grammar implementation: from theory to useable software. http://www2.mech-eng.leeds.ac.uk/users/men6am/DCC10-SG-Implementation-Workshop.htm. Accessed 4 Nov 2010

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations