Categorisation of Designs According to Preference Values for Shape Rules

  • Sungwoo Lim
  • Miquel Prats
  • Scott Chase
  • Steve Garner

Shape grammars have been used to explore design spaces through design generation according to sets of shape rules with a recursive process. Although design space exploration is a persistent issue in computational design research, there have been few studies regarding the provision of more preferable and refined outcomes to designers. This paper presents an approach for the categorisation of design outcomes from shape grammar systems to support individual preferences via two customised viewpoints: (i) absolute preference values of shape rules and (ii) relative preference values of shape rules with shape rule classification levels with illustrative examples.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bentley PJ (1999) Aspects of evolutionary design by computers. in Advances in Soft Computing — Engineering Design and Manufacturing, Roy R, Furu-hashi T (eds). Springer-Verlag, London, UK, pp. 99–118Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stiny G (2006) Shape: Talking about seeing and doing. Cambridge, Mass, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antonsson EK, Cagan J (2001) Formal engineering design synthesis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stiny G (1980) Introduction to shape and shape grammars. Environment and Planning B, 7: 343–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chase SC (2002) A model for user interaction in grammar-based design systems. Automation in Construction 11: 161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Piazzalunga U, Fitzhorn P (1998) Note on a three-dimensional shape grammar interpreter. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 25: 11–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knight TW (1996) Shape grammars: five questions. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26(4): 477–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lim S, Prats M, Chase S, et al. (2008) Sketching in design: Formalising a transformational process. in Computer Aided Architectural Design and Research in Asia (CAADRIA'08), Chiang Mai, ThailandGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mckay A, Jowers I, Chau HH, et al. (2008) Computer aided design: an early shape synthesis system. in International Conference in Advanced Engineering Design And Manufacture (ICADAM), Sanya, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maher ML, Balachandran B, Zhang DM (1995) Case-based reasoning in design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bailey A, Harris C (1999) Using hierarchical classification to exploit context in pattern classification for information fusion. in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Information FusionGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Michalski RS, Stepp RE (1983) Automated construction of classifications: Conceptual clustering versus numerical taxonomy. in IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI-5Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rammal R, Toulouse G, Virasoro MA (1986) Ultrametricity for physicists. Reviews of Modern Physics 58: 765–788CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reich Y, Fenves SJ (1991) The formation and use of abstract concepts in design. in Concept Formation: Knowledge and Experience in Unsupervised Learning, Fisher DH, Pazzani MJ (eds), Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, pp. 323–353Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fisher D, Xu L, Zard N (1992) Ordering effects in clustering. in Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Machine Learning, San Mateo, CA, Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gordon AD (1996) Hierarchical classification, in clustering and classification. Arabie P, Hubert LJ, Soete GD (eds), World Scientific Publishing, pp. 65–121Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Howard-Jones PA (1998) The variation of ideational productivity over short timescales and the influence of an instructional strategy to defocus attention, in Proceedings of Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Duffy AHB, Kerr SM (1993) Customised Perspectives of past designs from automated group rationalisations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, Special Issue on Machine Learning in Design 8(3): 183– 200Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manfaat D, Duffy AHB, Lee BS, (1998) SPIDA: Abstracting and generalising layout design cases. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 12: 141–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lim S, Lee BS, Duffy AHB, Incremental modelling of ambiguous geometric ideas (I-MAGI). International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 15(2): 93–108Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prats M, Earl C (2006) Exploration through drawings in the conceptual stage of product design. in Design Computing and Cognition DCC'06, Gero JS (ed) Springer, Eindhoven, Netherlands, pp. 83–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sungwoo Lim
    • 1
  • Miquel Prats
    • 2
  • Scott Chase
    • 1
  • Steve Garner
    • 2
  1. 1.University of StrathclydeUK
  2. 2.The Open UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations