Advertisement

Shape Grammars: A Key Generative Design Algorithm

  • Ning GuEmail author
  • Peiman Amini Behbahani
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Shape grammars are one of the main generative design algorithms. The theories and practices of shape grammars have developed and evolved for over four decades and showed significant impact on design computation and contemporary architecture. The formal computational approach to generative design as specified in shape grammars, and the novel descriptions and applications of shapes and shape rules for representing and composing a design, has become the foundation and inspiration for many contemporary computational design methods and tools, especially parametric design, which is a current leading computational design method. This chapter gives an overview of the historical developments and applications of shape grammars. The algorithm is introduced by highlighting the background, key components, and procedures for design generation, methods, and issues for authoring shape grammars, shape grammar evolution and extension, purposes of shape grammar application, as well as implementation of shape grammars. The characteristics of shape grammars are presented and discussed by comparing them to other key generative design algorithms, some of which have been applied in conjunction with shape grammars. This chapter shows that shape grammars have significant potentials in design generation, analysis, and optimization, as seen in many of the grammar studies. The future directions should focus on further research, improved pedagogy, as well as validation in design practice, to further advance the field.

Keywords

Shape grammars Shape rule Generative design algorithm Design generation Design analysis 

References

  1. Abdesalam M M (2012). The use of smart geometry in Islamic patterns. CAAD | INNOVATION | PRACTICE 6th international conference proceedings of the Arab Society for computer aided architectural design, pp 49–68Google Scholar
  2. Agarwal M, Cagan J (1998) A blend of different tastes : the language of coffee makers. Environ Plan B: Urban Analytics City Sci 25(2):205–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amini-Behbahani P (2016) Spatial properties of frank lloyd wright’s prairie style: A topological analysis. Dissertation. University of Newcastle, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  4. Ang M C, Chau H H, McKay A, De Pennnington A (2006) Combining evolutionary algorithms and shape grammars to generate branded product design. In: Gero J S (ed) Design computing and cognition’06, pp 521–540Google Scholar
  5. Andaroodi E, Andres F, Einifar A, Lebirge P, Kando N (2006) Ontology-based shape-grammar schema for classification of caravanserais: a specific corpus of Iranian Safavid and Ghajar open, on-route samples. J Cult Herit 7:312–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Argan GC (1996) Typology of architecture. In: Nesbitt K (ed) Theorizing a new agenda for architecture: an anthology of architectural theory 1965–1995. Princeton Architectural Press, New York, pp 240–247Google Scholar
  7. Çağdaş G (1996) A shape grammar: the language of traditional Turkish houses. Environ Plan B, Plan Des 23:443–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chakrabarti A, Shea K, Stone R, Cagan J, Campbell M, Hernandez NV, Wood KL (2011) Computer-based design synthesis research: an overview. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 11:021003–021012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chomsky N (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Colquhoun A (1996) Typology and design method. In: Nesbitt K (ed) Theorizing a new agenda for architecture: an anthology of architectural theory 1965–1995. Princeton Architectural Press, New York, pp 248–257Google Scholar
  11. Duarte J (2001) Customizing mass housing: a discursive grammar for Siza’s Malagueira houses. Dissertation, MITGoogle Scholar
  12. Everett DL (1993) Sapi, Reichenbach and the syntax of tense in Piraha. Pragmat Cogn 1(1):89–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eloy S (2012) A transformation grammar-based methodology for housing rehabilitation: meeting contemporary functional and ICT requirements. Dissertation, TU LisbonGoogle Scholar
  14. Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq 12:219–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Franco JMS, Duarte J, Batista EM, Landesmann A (2014) Shape grammar of steel cold-formed sections based on manufacturing rules. Thin-Walled Struct 79:218–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garcia S (2017) Classifications of Shape Grammars. In: Gero JS (ed) Design computing and cognition ‘16. Springer, Cham, pp 229–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gips J (1999) Computer implementation of shape grammars. Workshop on shape computation, MIT 1999Google Scholar
  18. Granadeiro V, Pina L, Duarte J, Correia JR, Leal VMS (2013) A general indirect representation for optimization of generative design systems by genetic algorithms: application to a shape grammar-based design system. Autom Constr 35:374–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hernandez CRB (2006) Thinking parametric design: introducing parametric Gaudi. Des Stud 27:309–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huang J, Pytel A, Zhang C, Mann S, Fourquet E, Hahn M, Cowan W (2009) An evaluation of shape/split grammars for architecture. Research Report CS-2009-23, David R. Cheriton School of Computer Science, University of Waterloo, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson R (2003) Case study methodology. In: Proceedings of the international conference methodologies in housing research, pp 22–24Google Scholar
  22. Kielarova SW, Pradujphongphet P, Bohez ELJ (2015) New interactive-generative design system: hybrid of shape grammar and evolutionary design – an application of jewelry design. In: Tan Y, Shi Y, Buarque F, Gelbukh A, Das S, Engelbrecht A (eds) Advances in swarm and computational intelligence. ICSI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Cham, 9140:302–315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knight T (1989) Color grammars: designing with lines and colors. Environ Plan B, Plan Des 16:417–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Knight T (1999) Shape grammars: six types. Environ Plan B, Plan Des 26:15–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knight T (2003) Computing with emergence. Environ Plan B, Plan Des 30:125–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koning H, Eizenberg J (1981) The language of the prairie: Frank Lloyd Wright’s prairie houses. Environ Plan B, Plan Des 8:295–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krish S (2011) A practical generative design method. Comput Aided Des 43:88–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee JH, Ostwald M, Gu N (2016) A justified plan graph (JPG) grammar approach to identifying spatial design patterns in an architectural style. Environ Plan B: Urban Analytics City Sci 45(1):67–89Google Scholar
  29. McCormack J, Dorin A, Innocent T (2004) Generative design: a paradigm for design research. In: Richmond J, Durling D, de Bono A (eds) Proceedings of futureground. Design Research Society, Melbourne, pp 156–164Google Scholar
  30. McKay A, Chase S, Shea K, Chau HH (2012) Spatial grammar implementation: from theory to useable software. Artif Intell Eng Des, Anal Manuf 26:143–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Özkar M, Stiny G (2009) Shape grammars. In: Proceedings, SIGGRAPH 2009 (course)Google Scholar
  32. Parish Y, Müller P (2001) Procedural modeling of cities. In: Proceedings of the 28th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques, pp 301–308Google Scholar
  33. Pauwels P, Strobbe T, Eloy S, De Meyer R (2015) Shape grammars for architectural design: the need for reframing. In: Celani G, Sperling DM, Franco JMS (eds) Communications in computer and information science. Springer, Berlin, pp 507–526Google Scholar
  34. Pugliese MJ, Cagan J (2002) Capturing a rebel: modeling the Harley-Davidson brand through a motorcycle shape grammar. Res Eng Des 13:139–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Runions A, Lane B, Prusinkiewicz P (2007) Modeling trees with a space colonization algorithm. In: NPH’07 proceedings of the Third Eurographics conference on natural phenomena, pp 63–70Google Scholar
  36. Sass L, Shea K, Powell M (2005) Design production: constructing freeform designs with rapid prototyping. In: Digital design: the quest for new paradigms – 23nd eCAADe conference proceedings, Lisbon (Portugal) 21–24 Sept 2005, pp 261–268Google Scholar
  37. Seawright J, Gerring J (2008) Case selection techniques in case study research, a menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Polit Res Q 61:294–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Singh V, Gu N (2011) Towards an integrated generative design framework. Des Stud 33:185–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Speller TH, Whitney D, Crawley E (2007) Using shape grammar to derive cellular automata rule patterns. Complex Syst 17:343–351MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Stavrev V (2011) A shape grammar for space architecture – part II. 3D graph grammar – an introduction. In: 41st international conference on environmental system, American Institute of Aeronautics and AstronauticsGoogle Scholar
  41. Stouffs R (2016) An algebraic approach to implementing a shape grammar interpreter. Conference: 34th eCAADe conference, At Oulu, Finland, vol 2, pp 329–338Google Scholar
  42. Stouffs R, Krishnamurti R (2001) Sortal grammars as a framework for exploring grammar formalisms. Mathematics and Design ‘01, Deakin University July 2001Google Scholar
  43. Stiny G (1977) Ice-ray: a note on the generation of Chinese lattice designs. Environ Plan B 4:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stiny G (1980) Introduction to shape and shape grammars. Environ Plan B 7:343–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stiny G (1981) A note on the description of designs. Environ Plan B, Plan Des 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stiny G (2006) Shape: talking about seeing and doing. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  47. Stiny G, Gips J (1972) Shape grammars and the generative specification of painting and sculpture. Inf Process 71:1460–1465Google Scholar
  48. Stiny G, Mitchell WJ (1978) The Palladian grammar. Environ Plan B 5:5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tching J, Reis J, Paio A (2016) A cognitive walkthrough towards an interface model for shape grammar implementations. Comput Sci Inf Technol 4:92–119Google Scholar
  50. Tomasello M (2009) Universal grammar is dead. Behav Brain Sci 32:470–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Trescak T, Rodriguez I, Esteva M (2009) General shape grammar interpreter for intelligent designs generations. Computer Graphics, Imaging and Visualization, 2009. CGIV’09, pp 235–240Google Scholar
  52. Wonka P, Wimmer M, Sillion F, Ribarsky W (2003) Instant architecture. ACM Trans Graph 22:669–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Art, Architecture and DesignUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations