# Architectural Design Exploration Using Generative Design: Framework Development and Case Study of a Residential Block

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

#### Research Gap, Aim, and Method

## 2. Generative Design Framework

#### 2.1. Solution Space

#### 2.2. Solution Set and Generator

#### 2.3. Create Models and Evaluate Solutions

#### 2.4. Exploration Approach

## 3. Demonstration of the Framework

#### 3.1. Case Description

#### 3.2. Prototype

#### 3.3. Solution Space Definition

#### 3.4. Generation of Solution Sets

#### 3.5. Models and Their Evaluation

^{2}for the total habitable floor area for the residential block in question. This was derived from a distribution of apartments and apartment sizes combined with a utilization factor of 0.8 to account for service areas, stairwells, elevators, and so on. For the case demonstration, it could have been used as a constraint where each solution had to target the set habitable floor area; however, it was decided that the generative design approach would facilitate a more exploratory approach if the solution space was not bound by a floor area constraint, as that would limit the variation in solution alternatives greatly. As a result, the habitable floor area was used as a metric, where a value closer to their target of 3500 m

^{2}had a higher score than values further away from it. Besides using the habitable floor area as a metric, the remaining area available on the site (hereafter referred to as the ‘disposable area’) was also computed and used as a metric. This was carried out because different solutions (in terms of the number of buildings, their sizes, and their compositions) took up different amounts of space on the block. During the study, it was conveyed by the case company that the block was going to struggle with the available area on the site after the buildings were placed. The block should, preferably, contain facilities for waste management, car parking, and outdoor recreation (such as playgrounds, grass surfaces, etc.). Thus, a metric related to the disposable space on the block was deemed a potentially useful indicator to include.

#### 3.6. Exploration of Feasible Solutions

## 4. Discussion

#### 4.1. Research Contribution

#### 4.2. Additional Considerations

## 5. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Diaz, H.; Alarcón, L.F.; Mourgues, C.; García, S. Multidisciplinary Design Optimization through process integration in the AEC industry: Strategies and challenges. Autom. Constr.
**2017**, 73, 102–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Krish, S. A practical generative design method. Comput. Des.
**2011**, 43, 88–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Evins, R.; Pointer, P.; Vaidyanathan, R.; Burgess, S. A case study exploring regulated energy use in domestic buildings using design-of-experiments and multi-objective optimisation. Build. Environ.
**2012**, 54, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kalua, A. Envelope Thermal Design Optimization for Urban Residential Buildings in Malawi. Buildings
**2016**, 6, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Buyle, M.; Audenaert, A.; Braet, J.; Debacker, W. Towards a More Sustainable Building Stock: Optimizing a Flemish Dwelling Using a Life Cycle Approach. Buildings
**2015**, 5, 424–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jalilzadehazhari, E.; Vadiee, A.; Johansson, P. Achieving a Trade-Off Construction Solution Using BIM, an Optimization Algorithm, and a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method. Buildings
**2019**, 9, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Shadram, F.; Mukkavaara, J. An integrated BIM-based framework for the optimization of the trade-off between embodied and operational energy. Energy Build.
**2018**, 158, 1189–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Singh, V.; Gu, N. Towards an integrated generative design framework. Des. Stud.
**2012**, 33, 185–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gerber, D.J.; Lin, S.H.E. Designing in complexity: Simulation, integration, and multidisciplinary design optimization for architecture. Simulation
**2014**, 90, 936–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shea, K.; Aish, R.; Gourtovaia, M. Towards integrated performance-driven generative design tools. Autom. Const.
**2005**, 14, 253–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nagy, D.; Lau, D.; Locke, J.; Stoddart, J.; Villaggi, L.; Wang, R.; Zhao, D.; Benjamin, D. Project discover: An application of generative design for architectural space planning. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Simulation for Architecture and Urban Design, Toronto, ON, Canada, 22–24 May 2017; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Abrishami, S.; Goulding, J.; Rahimian, F.P.; Ganah, A. Virtual generative BIM workspace for maximizing AEC conceptual design innovation: A paradigm of future opportunities. Constr. Innov.
**2015**, 15, 24–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Abrishami, S.; Goulding, J.; Rahimian, F. Generative BIM workspace for AEC conceptual design automation: Prototype development. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag.
**2020**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Salimzadeh, N.; Vahdatikhaki, F.; Hammad, A. Parametric Modelling and Surface-specific Sensitivity Analysis of PV Module Layout on Building Skin Using BIM. Energy Build.
**2020**, 216, 109953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hamidavi, T.; Abrishami, S.; Hosseini, M.R. Towards intelligent structural design of buildings: A BIM-based solution. J. Build. Eng.
**2020**, 32, 101685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nagy, D.; Villaggi, L.; Benjamin, D. Generative urban design: Integrating financial and energy goals for automated neighborhood layout. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Simulation for Architecture and Urban Design, Delft, The Netherlands, 4–7 June 2018; pp. 265–274. [Google Scholar]
- Peffers, K.; Tuunanen, T.; Rothenberger, M.A.; Chatterjee, S. A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst.
**2007**, 24, 45–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yin, R.K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 5th ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Sandberg, M.; Mukkavaara, J.; Shadram, F.; Olofsson, T. Multidisciplinary optimization of life-cycle energy and cost using a BIM-based master model. Sustainability
**2019**, 11, 286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Emami, N. Untangling parameters: A formalized framework for identifying overlapping design parameters between two disciplines for creating an interdisciplinary parametric model. Adv. Eng. Inform.
**2019**, 42, 100943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shadram, F.; Mukkavaara, J. Exploring the effects of several energy efficiency measures on the embodied/operational energy trade-off: A case study of Swedish residential buildings. Energy Build.
**2019**, 183, 283–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kolarevic, B.; Malkawi, A.M. Performative architecture: Beyond instrumentality; Spon Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Roudavski, S. Towards morphogenesis in architecture. Int. J. Arch. Comput.
**2009**, 7, 345–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Chien, S.-F.; Fleming, U. Design space navigation in generative design systems. Autom. Constr.
**2002**, 11, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Koutamanis, A. Digital architectural visualization. Autom. Constr.
**2000**, 9, 347–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Prats, M.; Lim, S.; Jowers, I.; Garner, S.W.; Chase, S. Transforming shape in design: Observations from studies of sketching. Des. Stud.
**2009**, 30, 503–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Coello, C.A.C.; Lamont, G.B.; Veldhuizen, D.A. Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-objective Problems; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Oxman, R. Theory and design in the first digital age. Des. Stud.
**2006**, 27, 229–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Aish, R. Extensible computational design tools for exploratory architecture. In Architecture in the Digital Age; Spon Press: New Yourk, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 344–353. [Google Scholar]
- Brans, J.P.; Mareschal, B. The PROMCALC & GAIA decision support system for multicriteria decision aid. Decis. Support. Syst.
**1994**, 12, 297–310. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 1.**Overview of the research design in this study (based on the methodology described in [17]).

**Figure 4.**Outline of the building generation technique used in the case study, where (

**a**) shows the definition of the building’s bounding shape, (

**b**) shows the fit of cuboids into the bounding shape, (

**c**) shows the initially generated building(s), (

**d**) shows the positioning of the building(s) and merge areas, and (

**e**) shows a scenario where two adjacent buildings are merged.

**Figure 5.**Example of models and evaluation of sunlight hours (

**left**) and views (

**right**) for a solution.

**Figure 6.**Examples of individual solutions from a generated solution set and their metrics, including an interactive 3D visualization, a table for a solution’s design variables, and a polar chart for a solution’s metrics.

**Figure 7.**Example of a solution set and its metrics, showing a table of solution metrics and a parallel coordinate chart of solution metrics.

**Figure 8.**Two approaches to modifying the solution space based on user preferences: creating islands surrounding each selected solution, or creating a modified boundary based on all selected solution.

**Table 1.**List of design variables and their alternatives for each building that were used in the case study of the residential area, where n ∈ [1,2,3,4] corresponds to a specific building.

Design Variable | Alternatives |
---|---|

Include Building_{n} ^{1} | True, False |

Building_{n} Length | 0–100% of the site’s edge |

Building_{n} Position | 0–100% offset ^{2} |

Building_{n} Width (Start) | 8–15 m |

Building_{n} Width (End) | 8–15 m |

Building_{n} Height (Start) | 2–4 floors or 2–7 floors ^{3} |

Building_{n} Height (End) | 2–4 floors or 2–7 floors ^{3} |

^{1}The notation n, where n ∈ [1,2,3,4], corresponds to one of the four possible buildings in the residential area.

^{2}The position of a building, or its offset along the block’s edge, is dependent on the available edge length, which depends on the building’s length.

^{3}On different parts of the site, different building heights are allowed. For the northern part of the block the smaller span is active, otherwise the greater span is active.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Mukkavaara, J.; Sandberg, M.
Architectural Design Exploration Using Generative Design: Framework Development and Case Study of a Residential Block. *Buildings* **2020**, *10*, 201.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10110201

**AMA Style**

Mukkavaara J, Sandberg M.
Architectural Design Exploration Using Generative Design: Framework Development and Case Study of a Residential Block. *Buildings*. 2020; 10(11):201.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10110201

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Mukkavaara, Jani, and Marcus Sandberg.
2020. "Architectural Design Exploration Using Generative Design: Framework Development and Case Study of a Residential Block" *Buildings* 10, no. 11: 201.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10110201