Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Article contents

Comparing two evolutionary algorithm based methods for layout generation: Dense packing versus subdivision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2014

Reinhard Koenig
Affiliation:
Faculty of Architecture, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Katja Knecht
Affiliation:
School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
Corresponding

Abstract

We present and compare two evolutionary algorithm based methods for rectangular architectural layout generation: dense packing and subdivision algorithms. We analyze the characteristics of the two methods on the basis of three floor plan scenarios. Our analyses include the speed with which solutions are generated, the reliability with which optimal solutions can be found, and the number of different solutions that can be found overall. In a following step, we discuss the methods with respect to their different user interaction capabilities. In addition, we show that each method has the capability to generate more complex L-shaped layouts. Finally, we conclude that neither of the methods is superior but that each of them is suitable for use in distinct application scenarios because of its different properties.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Arvin, S.A., & House, D.H. (2002). Modeling architectural design objectives in physically based space planning. Automation in Construction 11, 213225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bäck, T. (1994). Evolutionary Algorithm in Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bäck, T. (2000). Introduction to evolutionary algorithms. In Evolutionary Computation: 1. Basic Algorithms and Operators (Bäck, T., Fogel, D.B., & Michalewicz, T., Eds.), pp. 5964. New York: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bäck, T., Hoffmeister, F., & Schwefel, H.-P. (1991). A survey of evolution strategies. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Genetic Algorithms.Google Scholar
Cagan, J., Shimada, K., & Yin, S.S. (2002). A survey of computational approaches to threedimensional layout problems. Computer-Aided Design 34, 597611. doi:10.1016/S0010-4485(01)00109-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyne, R.F., & Flemming, U. (1990). Planning in design synthesis: abstraction-based LOOS. In Artificial Intelligence in Engineering V (Gero, J.S., Ed.), Vol. 1, pp. 91111. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Deb, K. (2001). Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Elezkurtaj, T., & Franck, G. (2001). Evolutionary algorithm in urban planning. Proc. CORP 2001, Information Technology in Urban- and Spatial Planning Conf., Vienna.Google Scholar
Elezkurtaj, T., & Franck, G. (2002). Algorithmic support of creative architectural design. Umbau 19, 129137. Accessed at http://www.iemar.tuwien.ac.at/publications/Google Scholar
Flack, R.W.J., & Ross, B.J. (2011). Evolution of architectural floor plans. Proc. 9th European Event on Evolutionary and Biologically Inspired Music, Sound, Art and Design, EvoMusArt 2011. Torino, Italy: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Flemming, U. (1989). More on the representation and generation of loosely packed arrangements of rectangles. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 16(3), 327359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, U., Baykan, C.A., Coyne, R.F., & Fox, M.S. (1992). Hierarchical generate-and-test vs. constraint-directed search: a comparison in the context of layout synthesis. In Artificial Intelligence in Design ’92 (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 817838. Boston: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, U., & Woodbury, R. (1995). Software environment to support early phases in building design (SEED): overview. Journal of Architectural Engineering 1, 147152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frew, R.S. (1980). A survey of space allocation algorithms in use in architectural design in the past twenty years. Proc. 17th Design Automation Conf., DAC ’80, New York.Google Scholar
Galle, P. (1981). An algorithm for exhaustive generation of building floor plans. Communications of the ACM 24, 813825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S., & Kazakov, V.A. (1996). Learning and re-using information in space layout planning problems using genetic engineering. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 11, 329334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grason, J. (1971). An approach to computerized space planning using graph theory. Proc. Design Automation Workshop, Atlantic City, NJ.Google Scholar
Hahn, E., Bose, P., & Whitehead, A. (2006). Persistent realtime building interior generation. Sandbox Symposium 2006, Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harada, M., Witkin, A., & Baraff, D. (1995). Interactive physically-based manipulation of discrete/continuous models. Proc. 22nd Annual Conf. Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Homayouni, H. (2000). A survey of computational approaches to space layout planning (1965–2000), pp. 118. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Department of Architecture and Urban Planning.Google Scholar
Homayouni, H. (2006). A literature review of computational approaches to space layout planning, pp. 127. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Department of Architecture and Urban Planning.Google Scholar
Hower, W., & Graf, W.H. (1996). A bibliographical survey of constraint-based approches to CAD, graphics, layout, visualization, and related topics. Knowledge-Based Systems 9, 449464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jo, J.H., & Gero, J.S. (1998). Space layout planning using an evolutionary approach. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 12(3), 149162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalay, Y.E. (2004). Architecture's New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Knecht, K., & Koenig, R. (2012). Layouts mittels Unterteilungsalgorithmen. In Kremlas: Entwicklung einer kreativen evolutionären Entwurfsmethode für Layoutprobleme in Architektur und Städtebau (Donath, D., Koenig, R., & Petzold, F., Eds.), pp. 113129. Weimar, Germany: Bauhaus-Universität Weimar.Google Scholar
Koenig, R., & Schneider, S. (2012). Hierarchical structuring of layout problems in an interactive evolutionary layout system. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 26(2), 129142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koza, J. (1992). Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, R., & Earl, C.F. (1998). Densely packed rectangulations. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 25, 773787. doi:10.1068/b250773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kursawe, F. (1990). A variant of evolution strategies for vector optimization. Parallel Problem Solving From Nature I (Schwefel, H.-P., & Männer, R., Eds.), LNCS Vol. 496, pp. 193197. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, L., & Steadman, P. (1974). The Geometry of Environment: An Introduction to Spatial Organization in Design, 2nd ed.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marson, F., & Musse, S.R. (2010). Automatic real-time generation of floor plans based on squarified treemaps algorithm. International Journal of Computer Games Technology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1155/2010/624817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michalek, J.J., & Papalambros, P.Y. (2002). Interactive design optimization of architectural layouts. Engineering Optimization 34(5), 485501. doi:10.1080/03052150214016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, W.J. (1998). The Logic of Architecture: Design, Computation, and Cognition, 6th ed.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W.J., Steadman, P., & Liggett, R.S. (1976). Synthesis and optimization of small rectangular floor plans. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 3(1), 3770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, A.W. (1991). An introductory tutorial on kd-trees. Report No. 209, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Müller, P., Wonka, P., Haegler, S., Ulmer, A., & Van Gool, L. (2006). Procedural modeling of buildings. Proc. ACM SIGGRAPH 2006/ACM Transactions on Graphics Conf., Boston.Google Scholar
Müller, P., Zeng, G., Wonka, P., & Van Gool, L. (2007). Image-based procedural modeling of facades. Proc. ACM SIGGRAPH 2007/ACM Transactions on Graphics Conf., San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Otten, R.H.J.M. (1982). Automatic floorplan design. Proc. 19th Design Automation Conf., Piscataway, NJ.Google Scholar
Parish, Y.I.H., & Müller, P. (2001). Procedural modeling of cities. Proc. SIGGRAPH, Los Angeles.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rittel, H.W.J. (1992). Planen, Entwerfen, Design: Ausgewählte Schriften zu Theorie und Methodik. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Rosenman, M.A., & Gero, J.S. (1999). Evolving designs by generating useful complex gene structures. In Evolutionary Design by Computers (Bentley, P.J., Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J.D. (1985). Multiple objective optimization with vector evaluated genetic algorithms. Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Genetic Algorithms.Google Scholar
Schnier, T., & Gero, J.S. (1996). Learning genetic representations as alternative to hand-coded shape grammars. In Artificial Intelligence in Design ’96 (Gero, J.S., & Sudweeks, Eds.), pp. 3957. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, B., & Eldars, M.Z. (1964). An approach to the optimum layout of single-story buildings. Architects' Journal 17, 13731379.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 23
Total number of PDF views: 194 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 24th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-76cb886bbf-wsww6 Total loading time: 0.373 Render date: 2021-01-24T10:20:58.349Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Comparing two evolutionary algorithm based methods for layout generation: Dense packing versus subdivision
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Comparing two evolutionary algorithm based methods for layout generation: Dense packing versus subdivision
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Comparing two evolutionary algorithm based methods for layout generation: Dense packing versus subdivision
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *