Você está na página 1de 18

Computational Approaches to Space Layout Planning Hoda Homayouni

A Survey of Computational Approaches to Space Layout


Planning (1965-2000)

Hoda Homayouni

Department of Architecture and Urban Planning


University of Washington

1. Introduction

Space layout planning is one of the most important and complex parts of any
architectural design process. In order to design a building that responds to most of its
related requirements, an architect (or architectural team) should spend much time and
effort on studying the specific situations of the building and all the relationships that
should exist within the building rooms and between the interior and exterior spaces.

Beside the artistic aspect of architectural design that occurs in almost all parts of
the design process, there is a substantial logical process behind the space layout planning
phase. Architects cannot avoid having numbers of trial and error approach to pass that
step. The combinatorial complexity of most floor plan design problems also makes it
practically impossible to obtain a systematic knowledge of possible solutions using pencil
and paper.

Therefore, computers would seem to be a very helpful device to provide


architects with a set of possible optimized solutions to the interlocking problems that
exist in this part of design. Many architects and computer scientists have tried to create a
program that could come up with the optimum solution for different constraints and
objectives that exist in architectural design process.

In 1965 Thomas Anderson, a student in civil engineering at the University of


Washington, for the first time, wrote a program called SLAP1. This program locates
activities in relation to one another in order to minimize the total cost of circulation
between two activities. After that many other students and scientists tried to address this
problem by producing different algorithm with different logics behind them.

Before categorizing the different logical structures and consequently different


programs that are presented and studied so far, it is worth mentioning that all of these
different approaches begin by propounding numerical definitions for all the constraints
existing in the design situation. There are basically two types of constraints that express
the design objective requirements:

1
Computational Approaches to Space Layout Planning Hoda Homayouni

 Dimensional constraints (geometrical constraints): constraints that are considered


over one place, i.e. constraints on surface, length or width, or space orientation.

 Topological constraints: constraints that are considered over a couple of spaces, i.e.
adjacency between the rooms, adjacency to perimeter of the building, non-
adjacencies or proximities. The numerical criteria that topologically define
arrangements usually come from site analysis questions and user need questions.

1.1 Automated Space Planning Characteristics and Solution


Approaches
Architectural space layout problems tend to be ill-defined (Yoon, 1992) and
over-constrained. Problems that are not well defined are ill-defined (Simon, 1973), in that
the initial constraints on the problem are not fully formulated. Resolving ill-defined
problems is a process of searching for and refining a set of design constraints. Problems
that are over-constrained have no single best solution and thus have too many possible
solutions (Balachandran and Gero, 1987). Automated space planning systems need a
method of providing a good solution from a large set of possible solutions, and a method
of allowing the designer to modify the set of design constraints to continually refine the
problem definition (Arvin and House, 2000). However Tsang et al have shown that there
does not appear to be a universally best algorithm and that certain algorithms may be
preferred under certain circumstances (Tsang et al, 1995). Therefore, in this part a general
categorization from the studied solution approaches is presented while more specification
and details will be presented in section 2.

1.1.1 Categorizing the Solution Approaches

As mentioned earlier, various approaches have been presented toward the


computerized space layout planning objective. But for the sake of simplicity we generally
categorize these different approaches to some main parts according to Galle’s divisions
(Galle, 1981). Obviously each part could contain some subcategories whit different ideas
and details. There are also some approaches that take benefit of the two types or more
together, in a different phases of computation.

1. On-line machine control and appraisal of the designer’s layout proposals.

2. Stepwise automatic layout generation interactively guided by manual selection of


desirable partial solutions.

3. Nonexhaustive automatic generation satisfying given constraints.

4. Exhaustive automatic generation satisfying given constraints.

5. Automatic generation of optimal or quasi optimal layouts under given constraints.

Approach no. 1 has been advocated primarily by Maver (Maver, 1970) who
argues that human creativity is superior to that of machines in solving real –world
problems. This approach is prominently represented by Th’ng and Davies (Th’ng and

2
Computational Approaches to Space Layout Planning Hoda Homayouni

Davies, 1975) whose ideas have been taken up by Gentles and Gardner (Gentles and
Gardner, 1978). Although Cross (Cross, 1977) produces some counterevidence, appraisal
programs enable the designer to increase the number of solutions considered. A tenfold
increase has been experienced (Mayer, 1979). But the solutions are still generated
intuitively and the element of randomness in traditional planning remains in the decision-
making.

Approach no.2 was suggested in graph-theoretical terms by Korf (Korf, 1977)


and developed by Ruch (Ruch, 1978) for generation of planlike bubble diagrams. Such
methods are likely to produce more solutions than methods of the first type but design
becomes no more systematic than the designer’s behavior.

Approach no.3 is represented by Weinzapfel and Handel (Weinzapfel and


Handel, 1975), Pfefferkorn (Pfefferkorn, 1975), and Willey (Willey, 1978). Eastman
illustrated the use of his General Space Planner (Eastman, 1971) by procedures also
belonging to this class of purely heuristic methods.

Approach no.4 was introduced by Grason (Grason, 1968) who generated plans
as dimensionally feasible embeddings of the duals1 of graphs representing at least the
required adjacencies (edges) between rooms (vertices). According to Steadman
(Steadman 1976), Grason’s program fails for problems of more than five rooms.

After that, Mitchell, Steadman, and Liggett (Mitchell et al, 1976) implemented
an exhaustive method for solving problems stated in terms of dimensional and adjacency
requirements. It includes, however, a final optimization step. To solve an n-room
problem, their program searches a permanent library of topologically distinct
“dissections”, i.e., tight rectangular packings of n nonoverlapping rectangles with
unspecified dimensions. For each dissection matching the adjacency requirements,
combinations of wall dimensions are searched so as to minimize, e.g., construction costs.
Earl (Earl, 1977) has shown that the algorithm which generated the library is not
exhaustive for n>=16 and the optimization method has been criticized by Gero (Gero,
1977). Later, Bloch (Bloch, 1978), Krishnamurti and Row (Krishnamurti and Row,
1978), efficiently generated all dissections with n<=10, and Stiny’s “shape grammars”
(Stiny, 1976) demonstrated their usefulness for such and other generating tasks. The two-
step procedure yields a valuable classification of the solutions according to their
topology. However, the size of the problem independent library limited the
computationally feasible values of n to at most 8.

1
In mathematics, a dual graph of a given planar graph G has a vertex for each plane
region of G, and an edge for each edge joining two neighboring regions. The term "dual"
is used because this property is symmetric, meaning that if G is a dual of H, then H is a
dual of G; in effect, these graphs come in pairs.

3
Computational Approaches to Space Layout Planning Hoda Homayouni

Flemming (Flemming, 1978) describes another implemented two-step method


which also satisfies adjacency and dimensional constraints. It combines exhaustive search
for certain topologically distinct equivalence classes of solutions with a linear
programming algorithm searching each class for an optimal representative. The linear
constraints include derived class-specific dimensional constraints ensuring required
adjacencies, and linear approximations of the user’s area constraints. Flemming presents
a realistic design example with nine rooms: Eight requirements had the form “A must be
adjacent to B or C”, but such alternatives cannot be managed by the program. Therefore
four of the subproblems defined by the possible choices among alternative adjacencies
were selected as test problems. To limit the solution set further, six “plausible” adjacency
constraints were added to the first of these problems, and eight constraints were added to
the other three problems.

Approach no.5 is closely related to the field of operational research. For


Example, Armour and Buffa (Armour and Buffa, 1963), Whitehead and Eldars
(Whitehead and Eldars, 1964), Gavett and Plyter (Gavett and Plyter, 1966), Seehof et al.
(Seehof et al, 1966) described various methods for generating a schematic layout
minimizing internal traffic while Krejcirik (Krejcirik, 1969) also considered area
minimization. Brotchie and Linzey (Brotchie and Linzey, 1971) developed a
comprehensive cost-benefit model including “flows” of persons, heat, loads, etc. Some of
these early techniques were later elaborated and supplemented by Cinar (Cinar, 1975),
Willoughby et al. (Willoughby et al, 1970), Portlock and whitehead (Portlock and
whitehead, 1971), Gawad and Whitehead (Gawad and Whitehead, 1976), Sharpe (Sharpe,
1973), and Hiller et al. (Hiller et al, 1976), among many others. Dudnik (Dudnik, 1973)
and Krarup and Pruzan (Krarup and Pruzan, 1973) discuss optimal architectural space
allocation and reach divergent conclusions. Unless the highly controversial notions of
numerical utility of imponderables and numerical weighting of incommensurable
desiderata are applied, it is impossible to express all relevant qualities of a floor plan as
an objective function. The measurement technique of Kalay and Shaviv (Kalay and
Shaviv, 1979) is an interesting attempt to capture the qualitative aspects of dwelling plans
numerically. Radford and Gero (Radford and Gero, 1980) recommend enumeration of
solutions which are Pareto-optimal with respect to several criteria. This method allows
for incommensurable desiderata but like automated optimization in general, it is faced
with the dilemma of architectural optimization: Either quantify what should not be
quantified or ignore what should not be ignored: the intangible values of architecture.

2 Annotated Bibliographies

In this section brief summaries of different programs that have been presented in
the field of space layout planning automation are presented.

4
Computational Approaches to Space Layout Planning Hoda Homayouni

2.1 Some Computer-aided Approaches to Housing


(Schnarsky, 1971)
In this paper two different ideas and consequently two whole different
computerized systems have presented.

The first system begins with filling out a detailed questionnaire and ends with a
robotic factory producing the unique, responsive house. The major portion of this paper
deals with an explanation of possible techniques used to accomplish this system. The
various techniques can be combined to form house design generating systems:

TECHNIQUE 1- SYSTEMATIC COMBINATION: Using the user


questionnaire information, the system will select the size and shape of each part from a
predetermined array of parts. How each part relates to the next can be defined by such
physical limitations as jointery, structure, life systems, and most important circulation.
Working within the rules of assemblage all of the combinations can be generated. Figure
1 and Figure 2 illustrates the steps of this process as it might apply to three parts of a
house.

Figure 1. Parts A, B, C are selected from an array of predetermined parts

Figure 2. Implicit in these parts are rules for assemblage

5
Computational Approaches to Space Layout Planning Hoda Homayouni

TECHNIQUE 2- TOPOLOGICAL PLACEMENT: This technique says that


different parts of the house should be placed based upon topological objectives. To solve
the internal arrangement problem a technique known as hierarchical decomposition can
be used. This takes the random list of elements and interactions extracted from the
questionnaires and finds the optimal clusters.

TECHNIQUE 3- EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES: As the many


combinations are generated, each can be evaluated. The highest scoring solutions
represent those that best meet the needs of the user.

TECHNIQUE 4- WHEN YOU CANNOT MAKE A DECISION, GUESS!


Random number techniques allow the computer to make irrational decisions.

TECHNIQUE 5- LAY DOWN THE IMPORTANT PARTS FIRST: This


technique provides a strategy which grows a plan beginning with the most critical part
and adding less important ones based upon the next highest relationship to what has
already been located.

TECHNIQUE 6- CANNED EXPERTISE: It is possible to instruct the


generating program to emulate basic planning laws that apply to any user’s requirement.
This can be done by pre-solving the arrangements of all the manufactured modules at the
subsystem level.

TECHNIQUE 7- GENERIC SOLUTIONS: This would generate all of the


possible combinations of manufactured parts once.

TECHNIQUE 8- LET THE USER TRY HIS HAND: Now set the user down to
an interactive graphic display tube and let him try to combine his parts. After each move
by the user, the program evaluates the current arrangement and offers criticism, cost, and
encouragement.

After explanation about ways to get computers to design responsive houses,


another concept that almost negates the need to develop the option 1 system has been
presented in this paper. The idea is houses from a kit of parts. Here the user buys his
house in parts and puts it together himself. As Kenneth Allinson (Allinson, 1970) has
points out, a house of modules could exist that modules are added and removed as
performance demands vary. One may even pay for it by credit card or return it like
bottles. This option also presents the problem of conflict and infringements on the rights
of others.

2.2 An Approach to Computerized Space Planning Using


Graph Theory (Grason, 1971)
This paper treats computerized space planning by discussing methods for the
solution of a formal class of floor plan design problems. These methods have been
implemented in an experimental computer program called GRAMPA (stands for GRAph

6
Computational Approaches to Space Layout Planning Hoda Homayouni

Manipulating PAckage). The methods of solution depend on a special linear graph


representation for floor plans called the dual graph representation.

As shown in Figure 3 a “space” is defined to be either a room or one of the four


outside spaces. A problem statement will consist of a set of adjacency and physical
dimension requirements that have to be satisfied, and a problem solution is a floor plan
that satisfies all of the design requirements.

Figure 3. A typical floor plan

In this approach, in applying graph theory to floor plan layout, rooms are
pictured as labeled nodes possessing certain attributes, such as intended use, area, and
shape. Adjacencies between rooms are indicated by drawing lines (edges) connecting the
nodes representing those rooms. These notions can be implemented by dealing with the
dual graph of a floor plan which is itself treated as a linear graph. An example of such a
floor plan graph is shown in Figure 4, with black nodes. In the floor plan graph, “edges”
and “nodes” will be called “wall segments” and “corners” respectively.

This special type of dual graph of the floor plan is the design representation to
be used for the class of problems described in this paper. The general idea of its
application is to first set down the four nodes and four edges of the dual graph that
represent the four outside walls of a building. Then nodes and edges are added one by
one to the dual graph in response to design requirements and other considerations until a
completed dual graph is obtained.

The incomplete dual graphs that are produced in the intermediate stages of this
design process present special problems. Since edges can be colored, directed, and
weighted, it is not always clear whether or not there exists at least one physically
realizable floor plan satisfying the relationships expressed in the incomplete dual graph.
To treat this problem, appropriate properties of the dual graph representation have been
developed and are presented in this paper, but there is not sufficient space here to
describe these methods.

7
Computational Approaches to Space Layout Planning Hoda Homayouni

Figure 4. Floor plan graph with dual graph

In addition to simply storing the structural description of the dual graph, the
computer data representation must be configured in such a way that it is easy to
determine whether the graph is planar or not. It must also be easy to generate the various
possible geometric realizations of the dual graph. A geometric realization of a planar
graph is simply one of the possibly many ways in which it can be drawn in a plane. Four
different realizations of a particular planar graph are shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Four planar realizations of a graph

8
Computational Approaches to Space Layout Planning Hoda Homayouni

Since in a partially completed dual graph each planar realization corresponds to


a topologically different set of floor plans it is important to be able to generate
realizations with great facility.

To deal with the problems mentioned above, a special graphical grammar called
the planar graph grammar (PGG) was developed. The general intent of this grammar is to
divide a graph into a set of hierarchically organized subgraphs. Each of these subgraphs
can be treated as a separate entity, and if it is connected to the rest of the graph, it is by at
most two nodes. These subgraphs are free to rotate about these nodes to create the various
realizations of the graph. Other such “degrees of freedom” in creating realizations are
also possible.

The grammar allows one to deal with planarity in an inductive manner. That is,
given a graph that is planar and described in terms of the planar graph grammar, if a new
edge is to be added to that graph a test can be developed to tell whether the resultant
graph will also be planer. This test assumes that each of the special subgraphs is already
planar. It then checks to see if the proposed edge can be connected to the two endpoints
without crossing an edge of one of these subgraphs. This method is extremely fast, and its
computation time increases only linearly with the size of the graph considered. The
computation time for other methods generally increases more than linearly with the size
of the graph.

At the next level, the program has two jobs to accomplish: (1) It must satisfy the
physical dimension requirements. It does this by selecting nodes on the boundary of the
region in question and assigning dimensions to them from the design requirement list. (2)
It must “fill” the region with edges representing those adjacencies not specifically
requested by the design requirements. Here the program does an exhaustive search of all
possible design solutions.

2.3 Modeling Architectural Design Objectives in Physically


Based Space Planning (Arvin et. al, 2000)
In the physically based space planning program, the designer creates a space
plan by specifying and modifying graphic design objectives rather than by directly
manipulating primitive geometry. The plan adapts to the changing state of objectives by
applying the physics of motion to its elements.

In fact, in this approach, the architect defines programmatic objectives in the


usual manner, and these objectives are then modeled as physical objects and forces used
in a dynamic physical simulation.

The spaces and walls are modeled as point masses, with adjacencies between
spaces that are modeled as springs connecting the masses. Objectives specified in the
architectural program are translated into forces applied to the masses.

In the first phase the topological objectives apply forces to the center of a space.
For collision detection, in this step boundary shapes are treated as circles so spaces are

9
Computational Approaches to Space Layout Planning Hoda Homayouni

able to slide around each other. The dynamic simulation starts to run until the system is in
equilibrium, which is defined as the point in time when the magnitudes of all velocities
are below a small threshold.

At the second phase topological objectives are turned off and geometric
objectives apply forces to the polygonal edges of space boundaries. Also space
boundaries are switched from a circular to a polygonal representation in this phase.
Collision detection and response then act to keep spaces from overlapping, resulting in an
arrangement that is very close to a recognizable building floor plan.

Once a geometric simulation has reached equilibrium, the designer can begin to
analyze and interact with the design by directly manipulating the graphic model rather
than by respecifying design objectives in the language of the underlying system. The
mass-spring representation allows the graphic model to adapt to those changes
immediately. The intention here is not simulating the actual behavior of building
elements, but simulating the way architects may view and interact with design elements
during their conception. Sample pictures for the process are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Sample results

10
Computational Approaches to Space Layout Planning Hoda Homayouni

2.4 Dynamic Space Ordering at a Topological Level in Space


Planning (Medjdoub et. al, 2000)
This approach and its implementation within ARCHiPLAN prototype is based
on a constraint programming approach which importantly avoids the inherent
combinatorial complexity for middle size space layout problems. In fact, this is a
complementary approach to Schwarz et al (Schwarz et al. 1996) that is based on a graph-
theoretical model. In this approach the topological level is a part of the computation
process, but the evaluation of the solutions is done at the geometrical level. It is restricted
to the small size problems (does not exceed nine rooms) and the shape contour of the
building is a result of the design process. This allows architects to be the actors of the
design at the topological level when choosing between feasible sketches and composing
interactively an objective function for finding the best corresponding geometrical
solutions.

Here, two constraint groups are defined in an extensible library: (1) specification
constraints; (2) research space reduction constraints.

Specification constraints regroup dimensional and topological constraints. They


are applied by the user and stored in a functional diagram. These constraints are
introduced into ARCHiPLAN interactively by graph handling and incremental
construction. Then adjacency and non-overlapping check applied between all pairs of
spaces. Of course, pairs of rooms which are already constrained to be adjacent verify the
non-overlapping constraint. Figure 7 shows permissible positions for e2x2 and e2 y2 (e2y2
represents the constrained variable y2 of space e2) by the non-overlapping constraint
between spaces e1 and e2. This constraint is dependent on the minimal space dimension
notion.

Figure 7. Permissible position for (e2.x2, e2y2) after non-overlapping constraint with e1. The
partitioning of the surroundings of a space in {E,W,N,S} is given.

Research space reduction constraints allow the combinatorial reduction. They


regroup the incoherent space elimination constraint, the symmetry constraint, the
topological reduction constraint and the propagation orientation constraint.

11
Computational Approaches to Space Layout Planning Hoda Homayouni

Also, a particular dynamic variable ordering (dvo) heuristic, named dso


(dynamic space ordering) is developed based on the most constrained space position.
Comparatively to the dvo heuristics, the dso heuristic is based on the space ordering and
particularly on the space reference points. To implement this heuristic, a new attribute in
space class called degree of constraint dg-cont has introduced. The more the space is
constrained, the higher the dg-cont value is and the more the non-overlapping and
adjacency variables corresponding to this space have a chance to be instantiated first. The
initial value of dg-cont is calculated from the adjacency constraints with the building unit.
If two spaces have an equal dg-cont value, the space with the highest average surface area
is chosen and if it is not sufficient to distinguish this space, the first in the list is chosen.

After the detection of the most constrained space with the building unit, its
corresponding adjacency variables with the building unit are instantiated. After each
space choice, one updates dynamically the dg-cont values of the remaining spaces. The
process runs until all topological variables are instantiated but a backtracking is
performed as soon as an inconsistency is detected. At this point the graphic representation
of a topological solution is generated which reveals slight overlapping of rectangles in the
same way as a sketch.

Figure 8. Some topological solutions of the house with two floors.

12
Computational Approaches to Space Layout Planning Hoda Homayouni

The optimization stage consists of minimizing an objective function, called cost


function. The “Branch and Bound” optimization method leads to the determination of the
global optimum of a geometrical solution. This is not the case with expert systems
approaches (Damski et. al., 1997) or evolutionary approaches (Jo et. al., 1998) which lead
to “satisfactory solutions”.

The objective functions minimize the wall length or the corridor surface area.
Thus one of the major objectives that remains is to carry out multi-criteria optimization.
The optimal geometrical solution of each topological solution is displayed in a collector
of geometrical solutions. The most important function of this collector is to realize a
classification of the topological solutions from the minimal objective function value of
the geometrical solutions related to each topology. It can be noted that several
geometrical solutions can correspond to the same optimum. In that case, they are all
enumerated.

Figure 9. Some optimal geometrical solutions of the house with two floors.

13
Computational Approaches to Space Layout Planning Hoda Homayouni

3 Conclusion

Several results could be inferred from reviewing computational approaches to


space layout planning at the first glance:

1. There is a demand for more comprehensive software to simplify the design


process.

2. Different techniques and methods are presented in this field where each has
focused on different areas of space layout planning and optimization.

3. Most of these approaches have stopped in the research stage and are not evolved
into the marketing stage.

To get to the point, one of the reasons that these programs are not applicable in
the marketing stage is their excessive runtime. On one hand, the runtime of these
programs increases exponentially by increasing the objectives so that the program can not
handle calculating complexities. On the other hand, the best application of such programs
could be the complex projects. In fact, architects usually have enough experience and
knowledge to solve the design objectives in small projects that they do not need to use
additional helping software. Furthermore, architects are capable to consider aesthetic
aspects of design while this job is not easy for programmers.

Future work would involve finding the best program among the presented
methods which its runtime could become close to a linear function of the number of
objectives. Also, according to the limitations that exist in using different forms for
different spaces, the chosen program should be able to present solutions at the end of
topological stage. This will let the architect to use his tact and aesthetic aspects in the
design.

In fact, an imaginable near future for these approaches, is the situation that the
software could help the architect in the design process especially in analyzing and
optimizing tasks. It is important to highlight that the software should be an assistant to the
architect and not the opposite.

4 References

Allinson,A.D. Credit Card Dwellings. November 1970, Daeha pub., London.

Armour, G. C., and Buffa, E. S. A heuristic algorithm and simulation approach


to relative location of facilities. Management Sci. 9, 2 (Jan. 1963), 294-309.

Arvin, S. A., and House, D. H. (2000). Modeling Architectural Design


Objectives in Physically Based Space Planning.

14
Computational Approaches to Space Layout Planning Hoda Homayouni

Balachandran, M. and Gero, J. S. (1987). Dimensioning of architectural floor


plans under conflicting objectives. Environment and Planning B (14), 29-37.

Bloch, C. J., and Krishnamurti, R. The counting of rectangular dissections.


Environment and Planning B 5, 2 (Dec. 1978), 207-214.

Brotchie, J. E., and Linzey, M. P. T. A model for integrated building design.


Building Sci. 6, 3 (Sept. 1971), 89-96.

Cinar, U. Facilities planning: A systems analysis and space allocation approach.


In Spatial Synthesis in Computer-Aided Building Design. C. M. Eastman, (Ed.) Applied
Science Publishers Ltd. London (1975), 19-40.

Cross, N. The Automated Architect. Pion Ltd. London (1977), 85-101.

Damski JC, Gero JS. An evolutionary approach to generating constraint-based


space layout topologies. In: Junge R, editor. CAAD future, Dordrecht: Kluwer (1997), p.
855-74.

Dudnik, E. E. An evaluation of space planning methodologies. In Environmental


Design Research. Vol. 1, Selected Papers, 4th Int. EDRA Conf., W. F. E. Preiser, (Ed.),
Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc., Stroudsburgh (1973), 414--427.

Earl, C. F. A note on the generation of rectangular dissections. Environment and


Planning B 4, 2 (Dec. 1977), 241-246.

Eastman, C. M. Heuristic algorithms for automated space planning. 2nd Int.


Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. British Computer Society (1971), 27-39.

Flemming, U. Wall representations of rectangular dissections and their use in


automated space allocation. Environment and Planning B 5, 2 (Dec. 1978), 215-232.

Galle, p. An algorithm for exhaustive generation of building floor plans. Nordisk


Kollegium, Denmark. (Dec. 1981)

Gavett, J. W., and Plyter, N. V. The optimal assignment of facilities to locations


by branch and bound. Operations Res. 14, 2 (Mar.-Apr. 1966), 210-232.

Gawad, M. T., and Whitehead, B. Addition of communication paths to


diagrammatic layouts. Building and Environment 11, 4 (Dec. 1976), 249-258.

Grason, J. An Approach to Computerized Space Planning Using Graph Theory,


(1971), Carnegie-Mellon University.

Jo JH, Gero JS. Space layout planning using an evolutionary approach. Artif
Intell Engng (1998), 12:149-62.

15
Computational Approaches to Space Layout Planning Hoda Homayouni

Kalay, Y. and Shaviv, E. A method for evaluating activities layout in dwelling


units. Building and Environment 14, 4 (Dec. 1979), 227-234.

Hiller, M., Kolbe, O., Bayer, W., and Ruhrman, I. Heuristic solution of general
allocation problems in administration and regional planning. Bulletin of Computer Aided
Architectural Design 20 (May 1976), 30-36.

Korf, R. E. A shape independent theory of space allocation. Environment and


Planning B 4, 1 (Jun. 1977), 37-50.

Krarup, J. and Pruzan, P. M. Computer-aided layout design. Mathematical


Programming Study 9 (Jul. 1978), 75-94.

Krejcirik, M. Computer-aided plant layout. Computer Aided Design 2, 1


(Autumn 1969), 7-19.

Krishnamurti, R. and Roe, P. H. O'N. Algorithmic aspects of plan generation


and enumeration. Environment and Planning B 5, 2 (Dec. 1978), 157-177.

Gentles, J., and Gardner, W. BILD--building integrated layout design. A BA C


US Occasional Paper No. 64. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland (1978), 12 p.

Gero, J. S. Note on "Synthesis and optimization of small rectangular floor plans"


of Mitchell, Steadman, and Liggett. Environment and Planning B 4, 1 (Jun. 1977), 81-88.

Grason, J. A dual linear graph representation for space-filling location problems


of the floor plan type. In Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning. G.
T. Moore, (Ed.) Proc. of The Design Methods Group, 1st Int. Conf., Cambridge, MA.
(1968), 170- 178.

Maver, T. W. A theory of architectural design in which the role of the computer


is identified. Building Science 4, 4 (Mar. 1970), 199- 207.

Mayer, T. W. Models and techniques in design. Design Methods and Theories


13, 3/4 (Jul. /Dec. 1979), 173-177.

Medjdoub, B, Yannou, B. Dynamic Space Ordering at a Topological Level in


Space Planning, (2000), University of Cambridge.

Mitchell, W. J., Steadman, J. P., and Liggett, R. S. Synthesis and optimization of


small rectangular floor plans. Environment and Planning B 3, 1 (Jun. 1976), 37-70.

Nigel Cross, The Automated Architect, Viking Penguin (1977).

Charles E. Pfefferkorn, A heuristic problem solving design system for


equipment or furniture layouts, Communications of the ACM, v.18 n.5, p.286-297 (May
1975).

16
Computational Approaches to Space Layout Planning Hoda Homayouni

Portlock, P. C. and Whitehead, B. Provision for daylight in layout planning.


Building Science 8, 3 (Sept. 1973), 243-249.

Radford, A. D. and Gero, J. S. On optimization in computer aided architectural


design. Building and Environment 15, 2 (Jun. 1980), 73-80.

Julia Ruch, Interactive space layout: A graph theoretical approach, Proceedings


of the no 15 design automation conference on Design automation, p.152-157 (June 19-21,
1978), Las Vegas, Nevada, United States

Jerrold M. Seehof , Wayne O. Evans , James W. Friederichs , James J. Quigley,


Automated facilities Layout Programs, Proceedings of the 1966 21st national conference,
p.191-199 (January 1966).

Schnarsky, A. Some Computer-aided Approaches to Housing (1971), University


of Wisconsin- Milwaukee.

Sharpe, R. Optimum space allocation within buildings. Building Science 8, 3


(Sept. 1973), 201-205.

Simon, H.A. (1973), The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial


Intelligence (4), 215-229.

Steadman, P. Graph-theoretic representation of architectural arrangement. In


The Architecture of Form. L. March, (Ed.) Cambridge Univ. Press. London, New York,
Melbourne (1976), 94- 115.

Stiny, G. Two exercises in formal composition. Environment and Planning B 3,


2 (Dec. 1976), 187-210

Th'ng, R. and Davies, M. SPACES: an integrated suite of computer programs for


accommodation scheduling, layout generation and appraisal of schools. Computer Aided
Design 7, 2 (Apr. 1975), 112-118.

Tsang EPK, Borrett JE, Kwan ACM. An attempt to map the performance of a
range of algorithm and heuristic combinations. Hybrid problems, hybrid solutions. In
Proceedings of AISB. IOS Press (1995). p. 203-16

Weinzapfel, G. and Handel, S. IMAGE: computer assistant for architectural


design. In Spatial Synthesis in Computer-Aided Building Design. C. M. Eastman, (Ed.)
Applied Science Publishers Ltd. London (1975), 61-97.

Whitehead, B., and Eldars, M. Z. An approach to the optimum layout of single-


storey buildings. The Architects" Journal (17 June), 1964, 1373-1380.

Willey, D. S. Structure for automated architectural sketch design. Computer


Aided Design 10, 5 (Sept. 1978), 307-312.

17
Computational Approaches to Space Layout Planning Hoda Homayouni

Willoughby, T., Paterson, W., and Drummond, G. Computer aided architectural


planning. Operational Research Quarterly 21, 1 (1970), 91-98.

Yoon, K.B. (1992). A Constraint Model of Space Planning. Southampton, UK:


Computational Mechanics Publications.

18

Você também pode gostar