Utility of Evolutionary Design in Architectural Form Finding: An Investigation into Constraint Handling Strategies

  • Likai WangEmail author
  • Patrick Janssen
  • Guohua Ji
Conference paper


Evolutionary design allows complex design search spaces to be explored, potentially leading to the discovery of novel design alternatives.



This paper was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51378248) and the China Scholarship Council (201706190203).


  1. 1.
    Caldas L (2008) Generation of energy-efficient architecture solutions applying GENE_ARCH: an evolution-based generative design system. Adv Eng Inform 22:59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eiben AE, Smith JE (2004) Introduction to evolutionary computing. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gero JS (2006) Computational models of creative designing based on situated cognition. In: Hewett T, Kavanagh T (eds) Creativity and cognition 2002. ACM Press, New York, NY, pp 3–10Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frazer J (1995) An evolutionary architecture. Architectural Association, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bentley P, Kumar S (2003) Three ways to grow designs: a comparison of embryogenies for an evolutionary design problem. In: Proceedings of the 1st annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, vol 1, pp 35–43Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kumar S, Bentley P (2003) Computational embryology: past, present and future. Adv Evol Comput:1–16Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhou L, Haghighat F (2009) Optimization of ventilation systems in office environment part II: results and discussions. Build Environ 44:657–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jo JH, Gero JS (1998) Space layout planning using an evolutionary approach. Artif Intell Eng 12:149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen S, Montgomery J, Bolufé-Röhler A (2015) Measuring the curse of dimensionality and its effects on particle swarm optimization and differential evolution. Appl Intell 42:514–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rasheed KM (1998) GADO: a genetic algorithm for continuous design optimization, Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rasheed K, Ni X, Vattam S (2005) Comparison of methods for developing dynamic reduced models for design optimization. Soft Comput 9:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Banzhaf W (1994) Genotype-phenotype-mapping and neutral variation—a case study in genetic programming. Parallel Probl Solving Nat III 866:322–332Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Janssen P, Kaushik V (2014) Evolving Lego, rethinking comprehensive design: speculative counterculture. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on computer-aided architectural design research in Asia:523–532Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rothlauf F (2006) Representations for genetic and evolutionary algorithms. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCabe TJ (1976) A complexity measure. IEEE Trans Softw Eng SE- 2:308–320MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rebhuhn C, Gilchrist B, Oman S, Tumer I, Stone R, Tumer K (2015) A multiagent approach to identifying innovative component selection. In Des Comput Cogn 14:227–244Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brown DC (2015) Computational design creativity evaluation. Des Comput Cogn 14:207–224Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grace K, Maher ML, Fisher D, Brady K (2015) Modeling expectation for evaluating surprise in design creativity. Des Comput Cogn 14:189–206Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wood A, Salib R (2013) Guide to natural ventilation in high rise office buildings. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liggett RS (2000) Automated facilities layout: past present and future. Autom Constr 9:197–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dino IG (2016) An evolutionary approach for 3D architectural space layout design exploration. Autom Constr 69:131–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ayşin SEV, Özgen A (2009) Space efficiency in high-rise office buildings. Metu Jfa:2Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vanneschi L, Clergue M, Collard P, Tomassini M, Vérel S (2004) Fitness clouds and problem hardness in genetic programming. Genet Evol Comput GECCO2004 Part II 3103:690–701Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rothlauf F, Goldberg DE (2003) Redundant representations in evolutionary computation. Evol Comput 11:381–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rutten D (2013) Galapagos: on the logic and limitations of generic solvers. Archit Des 83:132–135Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nanjing UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.National University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations