Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3

Summary

Generative Design Solutions for Free-Form Structures


Based on Biomimicry

The contemporary Summary has based on following questions:


1. What are the listed generative design solutions?
According to (Kilian, et al., 2005, p.77) following are the listed generative design solutions.
 To determine a structure's sturdiness;
 When required, rigidity and flexibility are used;
 To create free-form buildings utilizing biological forms such as plant growth;
 To develop or modify structures from the bottom up, rather than building (and
optimizing) them from the top down.
2. What are the free forms structure listed?
Architects are regaining interest in irregularly shaped structures with double curving
surfaces, often known as free forms or Blobs, (Haddow & Tufte, 2010).
3. How does this relate to bio mimicry?
Biomimicry has to do with generative design since it allows designers in a fraction of the
time to adapt the same solutions to their constructed environment. "Biomimicry takes away
the plans, recettes, processes, and strategies of the ecosystems and then develops design
principles to solve our problems." Designers are intimately interested and biomimicry offers
the chance to learn about the water, energy and materials of life. This approach extends the
scope for design to offer new solutions (Aage, et al., 2017, p.84).
4. How could this relate to architecture or architectural design (the summary should be
architecture-oriented)?
Generative architecture design is an iterative design method that enables industrial product
developers and architects to explore a more open and creative space for solution. Long
considered as a terrible issue, architectural design. In comparison with a traditional top-down
approach, generative design can deal effectively with design issues, using the parametrically
defined bottom-up paradigm to generate complex solutions. Then the answer itself becomes a
decent solution, if not an optimum. The advantage of utilizing generative design as a design
tool is that it does not create fixed geometries, but take a set of design principles that may
produce an endless range of alternative design solutions. The resulting design solutions might
be more sensitive, responsive, and adaptable to the wicked challenge (Thomsen, et al., 2016,
p.49).
5. Refer to the computational tools.
Computational tools in generative and computational design are (Kovacic, et al., 2016, p.
549):
 Metaheuristic search method is a unique evolutionary solution that incorporates
"biological evolution" ideas. A very popular and accessible tool developed by David
Rutten, Galapagos.
Other tools:
 Octopus: it enables you simultaneously to search for multiple objectives and to create
a series of optimal solutions between the extremes of each objective.
 Optimus: new plug-in for Grasshopper metaheuristic optimisation.
 Opossum: two of Grasshopper's most successful single-objectif optimization
methods
 Biomorphism: Enable designers to engage in the development process themselves.
 Wallacei: Is an evolutionary motor that users may utilize very extensive analysis
tools to do evolutionary 3D simulations in Grasshopper.
 Design Space Exploration: These tools help visually exploring space for design and
interactive multi-target optimisation (MOO) for conceptual design.
References
1. Aage, N., Andreassen, E., Lazarov, B. S., & Sigmund, O. (2017). Giga-voxel
computational morphogenesis for structural design. Nature, 550(7674), 84-86.
2. Haddow, B. P., & Tufte, G. (2010). Goldberg DE Genetic Algorithms in Search,
Optimization and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. In
Proceedings of the 2000 Congress on.
3. Kilian, A., & Ochsendorf, J. (2005). Particle-spring systems for structural form finding.
Journal of the international association for shell and spatial structures, 46(2), 77-84.
4. Kovacic, I., Filzmoser, M., & Denk, F. (2014). Interdisciplinary design: influence of team
structure on project success. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 119, 549-556.
5. Thomsen, M. R., & Tamke, M. (2016). Prototyping practice: Merging digital and
physical enquiries. In Rethink! Prototyping (pp. 49-62). Springer, Cham.

You might also like