Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:59:13.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integration of knowledge-based and generative systems for building characterization and prediction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2010

Ajla Aksamija ,
Kui Yue ,
Hyunjoo Kim ,
Francois Grobler  and
Ramesh Krishnamurti
Ajla Aksamija
Affiliation:
Tech Lab, Perkins+Will, Chicago, Illinois, USA
Kui Yue
Affiliation:
School of Architecture, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Hyunjoo Kim
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, California State University, Fullerton, California, USA
Francois Grobler
Affiliation:
US Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois, USA
Ramesh Krishnamurti
Affiliation:
School of Architecture, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses the integration of knowledge bases and shape grammars for the generation of building models, covering interaction, system, and implementation. Knowledge-based and generative systems are combined to construct a method for characterizing existing buildings, in particular, their interior layouts based on exterior features and certain other parameters such as location and real dimensions. The knowledge-based model contains information about spatial use, organization, elements, and contextual information, with the shape grammar principally containing style rules. Buildings are analyzed and layouts are generated through communication and interaction between these two systems. The benefit of using an interactive system is that the complementary properties of the two schemes are employed to strengthen the overall process. Ontologies capture knowledge relating to architectural design principles, building anatomy, structure, and systems. Shape grammar rules embody change through geometric manipulation and transformation. Existing buildings are analyzed using this approach, and three-dimensional models are automatically generated. Two particular building types, the vernacular rowhouse and high-rise apartment building, both from Baltimore, Maryland, are presented to illustrate the process and for comparing the utilized methodologies.

Keywords

Building Information ModelingKnowledge-Based ModelOntologyShape Grammar
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 24 , Issue 1: Design Computing and Cognition , February 2010 , pp. 3 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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., & Grobler, F. (2007). Architectural ontology: development of machine-readable representations for building design drivers. Proc. Int. Workshop on Computing in Civil Engineering, pp. 168–175. Pittsburgh, PA: ASCE.Google Scholar
Cagdas, G. (1996). A shape grammar: the language of traditional Turkish houses. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 23(4), 443–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiou, S.C., & Krishnamurti, R. (1995). The fortunate dimensions of Taiwanese traditional architecture. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 22, 547–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duarte, J.P. (2005a). Towards the mass customization of housing: the grammar of Siza's houses at Malagueira. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 32, 347–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duarte, J.P. (2005b). A discursive grammar for customizing mass housing: the case of Siza's houses at Malagueira? Automation in construction 14(2), 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S., & Maher, M.L. (1993). Modeling Creativity and Knowledge-Based Creative Design. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hayward, M.E., & Belfoure, C. (2005). The Baltimore Rowhouse. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
Kalay, Y. (2004). Architecture's New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kim, H., & Grobler, F. (2007). Ontology of a building to support reasoning in design process. Proc. Int. Workshop on Computing in Civil Engineering, pp. 151–158. Pittsburgh, PA: ASCE.Google Scholar
Knight, T.W. (1991). Designing with grammars. In Computer-Aided Architectural Design (Schmitt, G.N., Ed.), pp. 33–48. Wiesbaden: Vieweg.Google Scholar
Lund, E., & Yost, P. (1997). Deconstruction—building disassembly and material salvage: the Riverdale case study. Upper Marlboro, MD: NAHB Research Center, Inc.Google Scholar
McCormack, J.P., & Cagan, J. (2002). Designing inner hood panels through a shape grammar based framework. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 16, 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCormack, J.P., Cagan, J., & Vogel, C.M. (2004). Speaking the Buick language: capturing, understanding, and exploring brand identity with shape grammars. Design Studies 25, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCullough, M., Mitchell, W.J., & Purcell, P. (1990). The Electronic Design Studio: Architectural Knowledge and Media in the Computer Era. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W.J. (1990). The Logic of Architecture: Design, Computation, and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pugliese, M.J., & Cagan, J. (2002). Capturing a rebel: modeling the Harley–Davidson brand through a motorcycle shape grammar. Research in Engineering Design 13, 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiny, G., & Mitchell, W.J. (1978). The Palladian grammar. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 5, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiny, G. (1980). Introduction to shape and shape grammars. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 7, 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiny, G. (2006). Shape: Talking about Seeing and Doing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yue, K., & Krishnamurti, R. (2008). A technique for implementing a computation-friendly shape grammar interpreter. In Design Computing and Cognition ‘08 (Gero, J.S. & Goel, A.K., Eds.), pp. 61–80. New York: Springer Science + Business Media B.V.CrossRefGoogle Scholar