A Computer-Aided Rule-Based Mamluk Madrasa Plan Generator

Part of the Nexus Network Journal book series (NNJ, volume 9,1)


A computer-aided rule-based framework that restructures the unstructured information embedded in precedent designs is introduced. Based on a deductive analysis of a corpus of sixteen case studies from Mamluk architecture, the framework is represented as a generative system that establishes systematic links between the form of a case study, its visual properties, its composition syntax and the processes underlying its design. The system thus formulated contributes to the areas of design research and practice with a theoretical construct about design logic, an interactive computerized plan generator and a combination of a top-down approach for case study analysis and a bottom-up methodology for the derivation of artifacts.


Computer-aided design logic of design visual reasoning precedent-based design design process mamluk architecture shape grammar 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agarwal, M., and J. Cagan. 1998. A blend of different tastes: the language of coffee makers. Environment and Planning ‘B’: Planning and Design25: 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Jokhadar, A. 2004. Shape Grammar: An Analytical Study of Architectural Composition Using Algorithms and Computer Formalisms (The Morphology of Educational Buildings in Mamluk Architecture). Unpublished Master Thesis, Department of Architecture, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.Google Scholar
  3. Caws, P. 1988. Structuralism: The Art of the Intelligible. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press International.Google Scholar
  4. Chase, S.C. 1989. Shapes and shape grammars: from mathematical model to computer implementation. Environment and Planning ‘B’: Planning and Design16: 215–242.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Dochy, F., M. Segers, P. Van den Bossche and K. Struyven. 2005. Students’ Perceptions of a Problem-Based Learning, Environment, Learning Environments Research8: 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duarte, J. P. 2005. Towards the mass customization of housing: the grammar of Siza’s houses at Malagueira. Environment and Planning ‘B’: Planning and Design32(3): 347–380.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Eilouti, B. 2001. Towards a Form Processor: A Framework for Architectural Form Derivation and Analysis Using a Formal Language Analogy. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  8. Eilouti, B. and A. Al-Jokhadar. 2007. A Generative System for Mamluk Madrasa Form-Making. Nexus Network Journal9, 1: 7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flemming, U. 1987. More than the sum of its parts: the grammar of Queen Anne houses Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design14: 323–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gips, J. 1975. Shape Grammars and their Uses. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  11. -. 2000. Computer Implementation of Shape Grammars. Boston: Computer Science Department, Boston College.Google Scholar
  12. Giassie, H. 1975. A Structural Analysis of Historical Architecture. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
  13. The Islamic Methodology for the Architectural and Urban Design. 1991. Proceedings of the 4th seminar, Rabat, Morocco. Organization of Islamic Capitals and Cities.Google Scholar
  14. Koning, H. and J. Eisenberg. 1981. The language of the prairie: Frank Lloyd Wright’s prairie houses. Environment and Planning: B8: 295–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krishnamurti, R. 1980. The arithmetic of shapes. Environment and Planning ‘B’: Planning and Design7: 463–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. -. 1981a. The construction of shapes, Environment and Planning ‘B’: Planning and Design 8: 5–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. -. 1981b. SGI: A Shape Grammar Interpreter. Research Report, Centre for Configurational Studies, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.Google Scholar
  18. -. 1992a. The maximal representation of a shape. Environment and Planning ‘B’: Planning and Design 19: 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. -1992b. The arithmetic of maximal planes. Environment and Planning ‘B’: Planning and Design 19: 431–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krishnamurti, R. and C. Giraud. 1986. Towards a shape editor: the implementation of a shape generation system. Environment and Planning ‘B’: Planning and Design13: 391–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Osman, M.S. 1998. Shape grammars: simplicity to complexity. Paper presented in University of East London, London. Scholar
  22. Piazzalunga, U. and P.I. Fitzhorn. 1998. Note on a three-dimensional shape grammar interpreter, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design25: 11–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stiny, G. 1975. Pictorial and Formal Aspects of Shape and Shape Grammars. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  24. -. 1980. Introduction to shape and shape grammars, Environment and Planning ‘B’: Planning and Design 7: 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. -. 1994. Shape rules: closure, continuity and emergence. Environment and Planning ‘B’: Planning and Design, vol. 21, Pion Publication, Great Britain, pp. s 49–s 78, 1994Google Scholar
  26. Tapia, M. A. 1996. From Shape to Style. Shape Grammars: Issues in Representation and Computation, Presentation and Selection. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar
  27. -. 1999. A visual implementation of a shape grammar system. Environment and Planning ‘B’: Planning and Design 26: 59–73.Google Scholar
  28. Tzonis, A. and I. White, eds. 1994. Automation Based Creative Design: Research and Perspectives, London: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kim Williams Books, Turin 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Architectural EngineeringJordan University of Science and TechnologyIrbidJordan
  2. 2.College of Architecture & Design German-Jordanian UniversityAmmanJORDAN
  3. 3.TURATH: Heritage Conservation Management and Environmental Design ConsultantsAmmanJORDAN

Personalised recommendations