Morphogenic Evolutionary Design: Cellular Automata Representations in Topological Structural Design

  • Rafal Kicinger
  • Tomasz Arciszewski
  • Kenneth De Jong
Conference paper


This paper provides the initial results of a study on the applications of cellular automata representations in evolutionary design of topologies of steel structural systems in tall buildings. In the paper, a brief overview of the state of the art in cellular automata and evolutionary design representations is presented. Next, morphogenic evolutionary design is introduced and illustrated by several types of cellular automata representations. Further, Emergent Designer, a unique evolutionary design tool developed at George Mason University, is briefly described. It is an integrated research and design support tool which applies models of complex adaptive systems to represent engineering systems and analyze design processes. The paper also reports the initial results of several structural design experiments conducted with Emergent Designer. The objective of the experiments was to determine feasibility of various types of cellular automata representations in topological structural optimization. Finally, initial research conclusions and recommendations for the further research are provided.


Cellular Automaton Design Concept Initial Configuration Local Neighborhood Design Rule 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bentley, P. J., & Corne, D. W. (Eds.). (2002). Creative evolutionary systems. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wolfram, S. (2002). A new kind of science. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media.MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wolfram, S. (1994). Cellular automata and complexity: collected papers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Inou, N., Uesugi, T., Iwasaki, A., & Ujihashi, S. (1998). Self-organization of mechanical structure by cellular automata. In P. Tong, t. Y. Zhang & J. Kim (Eds.), Fracture and strength of solids. Part 2: Behavior of materials and structure, 1115–1120.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kundu, S., Oda, J., & Koishi, T. (1997). A self-organizing approach tooptimization of structural plates using cellular automata. In W. Gutkowski & Z. Mroz (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second World Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization (WCSMO-2), Zakopane, Poland, 173–180.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kita, E., & toyoda, T. (2000). Structural design using cellular automata. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 19, 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kita, E., & toyoda, T. (2001). Truss structural design based on concept of cellular automata. In Proceedings of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures Symposium (IASS2001), Nagoya, Japan.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hajela, P., & Kim, B. (2001). On the use of energy minimization for CA based analysis in elasticity. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 23(1), 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arciszewski, T., Michalski, R. S., & Wnek, J. (1995). Constructive induction: the key to design creativity. In Preprints of the third International Round-table Conference on Computational Models of Creative Design. Heron Island, Queensland, Australia, 397–426.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arciszewski, T., & De Jong, K. A. (2001). Evolutionary computation in civil engineering: research frontiers. In B. H. V. Topping (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Civil and Structural Engineering Computing, Eisenstadt, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bentley, P. J. (2000). Exploring component‐based representations. In I. C. Parmee (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Adaptive Computing in Design and Manufacture (ACDM’2000), University of Plymouth, UK, 161–172.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hornby, G. S. (2003). Generative representations for evolutionary design automation. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bentley, P. J., & Kumar, S. (1999). Three ways to grow designs: a comparison of embryogenies for an evolutionary design problem. In W. Banzhaf, J. Daida, A. E. Eiben, M. H. Garzon, V. Honavar, M. J. Jakiela & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO’99), Orlando, Florida, USA, 35–43.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thompson, D. A. W. (1942). On growth and form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jakiela, M. J., Chapman, C. D., Duda, J., Adewuya, A., & Saitou, K. (2000). Continuum structural topology design with genetic algorithms. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 186, 339–356.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hamda, H., Jouve, F., Lutton, E., Schoenauer, M., & Sebag, M. (2002) Compact unstructured representations for evolutionary topological optimum design. Applied Intelligence, 16, 139–155.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    De Jong, K. A. (to appear). Evolutionary computation: a unified approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Murawski, K., Arciszewski, T., & De Jong, K. A. (2001). Evolutionary computation in structural design. Journal of Engineering with Computers, 16, 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kicinger, R., Arciszewski, T., & De Jong, K. A. (2004). Evolutionary designing of steel structures in tall buildings. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering(tentatively approved).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rafal Kicinger
    • 1
  • Tomasz Arciszewski
    • 2
  • Kenneth De Jong
    • 3
  1. 1.Information Technology and Engineering SchoolGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxVirginia
  2. 2.Civil, Environmental and Infrastructure Engineering DepartmentGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxVirginia
  3. 3.Computer Science DepartmentGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxVirginia

Personalised recommendations