EMERGENCE SEMINAR DOCUMENTATION EMERGENT TECHNOLOGIES & DESIGN Architectural Association February 2016
DIRECTORS Michael Weinstock George Jeronimidis
STUDIO MASTER Evan Greenberg
MASTER TUTOR Mohammed Makki
DESIGN TEAM Yue Zhu Julia Hajnal Camila Becerra
“from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved” Charles Darwin, “ The Origin of Species”
2
ABSTRACT
Through the mimic of evolutionary science principles, Evolutionary Algorithms are being used more and more in diverse disciplines, in order to find solutions for problems through optimization procedures of single and multiple objectives. In the design and architecture fields, the application of evolutionary solvers as a design tool, offers the possibility to find trade-off solutions for problems that present multiple fitness criteria, which are usually conflicting with one another 1. This allows the obtaining of results which would never be possible through traditional design tools. Efficient implementation of evolutionary computational tools rely not only on the understanding of the underlying algorithms driving the solver, but also of the biological evolutionary principles from which they emerge. Evolutionary algorithms are based on the same biological principals that guide the evolution and development of all living organisms. The science of Evolutionary Development (“Evo-Devo”) studies these “two strongly coupled processes, operating over maximally differentiated life spans: the rapid process of embryological development from a single cell to an adult form, and the long slow process of the evolution of diverse species of forms over extended time”.2 With the access, in the last couple of decades, to the study of the genome, particularly the human genome, biologists could not only evidence Darwin’s theory, but also observe that diverse living organisms can share almost the exact same genetic information. This discovery in biology has been fundamental, since it has proven that despite phenotypical differences, all complex organisms, from insects to humans, share a common subset of the genome,
called the “tool kit” of master genes. These genes control the structuring and formation of their body parts, by acting on the timing and sequences of growth, regulating where and when growth starts and stops. Among the regulatory genes is a common sequence, known as the ‘homeobox’. Therefore, the switching on and off of genes for different body parts and at different time instances during the development process, can lead to highly diverse forms. The body plan structure will determine the body parts of any individual and the topological relation between them. Each single cell of every living form carries the information (genome) for the development of the whole being. Through reproduction, this genetic information is transmitted down through the next generation. Random variations in the genome (mutations) occur naturally, and natural selection acts as the force that chooses the “ fittest” forms that will survive. In evolutionary algorithms that force is replaced by predefined criterions, which will determine the fitness target. The rising appearance of evolutionary solvers is increasing the utilisation of evolutionary computation as a design strategy and tool, “ a development that has bridged the gap between the domains of biology, computer science and the field of architecture and design” 3. The following research investigates the application of these concepts, through a strategic design approach that is based on four main consecutive sequences.
1. M. Makki, “An Evolutionary Model for Urban Development” , ISUF, 2015 2. M. Weinstock, “The Architecture of Emergence- The Evolution of form in Nature and Civilisation”, Wiley, 2010,p31 3. M. Makki, “The Evolutionary Adaptation of Urban Tissues through Computational Analysis” ,eCAADe, 2015
3
4
CONTENTS
SEQUENCE 1
SEQUENCE 3
Strategy 9 Generation 1 10 Generation 2 11 Generation 3 12 Observations 13
Strategy 21 Generation 3 22 Generation 6 23 Generation 10 24 Observations 25
SEQUENCE 2 Strategy 15 Generation 4 16 Generation 5 17 Generation 6 18 Observations 19
SEQUENCE 4 Strategy 27 Generation 20 28 Generation 40 29 Generation 60 30 Generation 80 31 Observations 32
CONCLUSIONS 34
5
6
INTRODUCTION
This research aims to understand how Evolution and Embryological Development theories can be reinterpreted and applied to design through Evolutionary Computational processes. The developed experiments are based on four main consecutive sequences, which start from applying standard operations to a simple geometry and progressively become more complex in terms of aims, techniques and utilised tools. Sequence 1 starts by setting a series of simple operations (gene pool) that are applied to a basic geometry (primitive) in Rhino environment. After defining a genome structure, a number of operations (genes) are chosen in order to create 10 new individuals that will conform Generation 1. The resulting population is then evaluated under two defined criterions, and a remapped value is used to rank the individuals according to their fitness. Breeding and crossover strategies are determined to create Generations 2 and 3, with 10 new individuals each. In Sequence 2, a body plan is introduced, and the primitive geometry is subdivided into body parts. Each gene is instructed to affect a single body part. In addition, new genes are added to the gene pool as well as slight modifications applied to some of the instructions. This modifications are made in order to avoid having un-unified individuals. Furthermore, the genome structure’s length is increased, and mutation strategies are incorporated, considering their type, rate and probability of appearance. Once breeding and crossover strategies are defined, Generations 4,5,6 (with 10 individuals each) are produced in Grasshopper, and ranked according to 2 new fitness criteria. In this dual-parameter optimisation process, differential weights are applied to the criteria assigned (determined through the crossover strategy) in order to achieve the evolutionary result.
For the following sequences, the potential of Octopus/Gh plugin within Rhino to simulate a genetic experiment for the evolution of Urban Blocks is explored. For Sequence 3, the London based Brunswick centre is taken as a case study, and used as a primitive urban block geometry for the evolutionary process. A body plan is introduced, and a series of parameters are set, which will determine the resulting gene pool. Three fitness criteria are defined in relation to design ambitions and environmental factors. Therefore, multi- parameter optimisation and associative design tools are used to digitally simulate the evolutionary process. The utilisation of Octopus/Gh as a tool introduces a degree of complexity which enables to run a large number of generations in a short period of time. Generations 3,6 and 10 (with 10 individuals each) are analysed, ranked and reviewed. For the final Sequence, the urban block primitive is increased to 16 superblocks (4 by 4). Adjustments are made to the body plan, parameters (gene pool) and fitness criteria considered in the previous sequence. The strategy is defined by the regulation of values such as Elitisim, Breeding, Crossover, Mutation rate and probability, which can be modified for each evaluated generation. A simulation of 80 generations (with 21 individuals each) was run, stopping in Generations 20, 40, 60 and 80. In between these, the strategy was adjusted accordingly. Data analysis and observations are made by comparison to the primitive urban block.
7
SEQUENCE
01
SEQUENCE 1 | STRATEGY INTRODUCTION In this first phase, simple 3D Rhino experiments are carried out in order to develop an empirical understanding of evolutionary computation, using concepts from Evo-Devo (Evolutionary Development) as a biological reference. It is important to consider that these biological concepts are not taken literally, but are abstracted and reinterpreted, to help in the comprehending of how the evolutionary process can be understood in digital terms.
Sequence 1 starts with the selection of a basic primitive geometry (cube) as a first step for the creation of new individuals . A set of basic Rhino operations (move, copy, non-uniform scaling, rotation, etc ) that are applied to the primitive geometry, are defined in order to set the rules, or “genes” that conform the “genepool”. The genome structure will determine the amount of genes that conform an individual. The genepool used for the first generation consists of 6 genes, each defining a different action; while the genome contains only 3 genes. Once both genepool and genome are determined, it is possible to create the first population through a random combination of gene sequences. In this way, 10 individuals or “phenotypes” are created as Generation 1.
PRIMITIVE | CUBE
A fitness criteria is defined in order to evaluate and rank the individuals. Breeding and Crossover stategies will then be established to further create Generations 2 and 3. Each generation is analized independently and compared to each other through standard deviation graphs.
L= 5 Figure 1.1. Primitive geometry
GENE POOL
GENE POOL
ERATION 01
A
B
Copy and move 1 unit along X axis.
C
Rotate 45o from center. XY Plan
D
Copy and move 1 unit along Z axis.
E
Scale 2 from center
F
Un-uniform scale X*1, Y*2, Z*1
Rotate 60o from center. ZX Plan
Figure 1.2. Genepool
BREADING LOGIC 1
FITNESS CRITERIA MIN G1.3 A D E 1600 4000 0.4
SURFACE AREA VOLUMEG1.9 G1.5 E D C 1600 4000 0.4
E A D 1600 4000 0.4
Mean Fitness SD Factor: 0.
GENERATION 1
G1.8
G1.7
G1.6
G1.4
G1.1
G1.2
D E B
F C D
B D A
D F B
A B C
A A B
1000 2000 0.5
1060 1933 0.55
1066 1914 0.56
600 1000 0.6
400 500 0.8
350 375 0.93
Figure 1.3. Genomes from Generation 1
ERATION 02
G1.1 G1.2
C A B GRAPH A A B G1
G1.3 G1.10 G1.4 B
A D E
A F
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8
D F B
G1.5
E D C
G1.6 300 250 G1.7 1.2
B D A
G1.8 G1.9
DCROSSOVER E B STRATEGY 1 E A D
G1.10
B A F
0.6 0.4 0.2 -0.2
0
G2.2
G2.3
G2.4
G2.5
G2.6
G2.7
G2.8
G2.9
G2.10
0.2
F C D
9 G2.1
0
G1.3 A D E
+
0.4
A D AE
E D C
E A BD
Copy and move 1 1600 1600 SEQUENCE unit along X axis. 4000 4000 0.4
1|
0.4
D E B
Rotate 45o from 1600 100001 GENERATION center. 4000 2000 XY 0.4Plan 0.5
F C CD
B D A
Copy and move 1 1066 1060 unit along Z axis. 1914 1933 0.55
0.56
D F DB
A B C
Scale 2 from center 600 1000 0.6
400 500 0.8
A A EB
B A F
Un-uniform scale 350 300 X*1, 375 Y*2, Z*1 250 0.93
1.2
Rotate 6 center. ZX Plan
CROS STRAT
FITNESS CRITERIA BREADING LOGIC 01 1 | Surface Area / Volume
ERATION RATION 01 02
G
G1.3 G2.1
G1.5 G2.2
G1.9 G2.3
G1.8 G2.4
G1.7 G2.5
G1.6 G2.6
G1.4 G2.7
G2.8 G1.1
G1.2 G2.9
G1.10 G2.10
AA DD EF
EE D D BC
EE AA CD
DD EE BB
FF CC AD
BB DD DA
D D EF BB
AA BB C D
AA AA CB
BB AA EF
1600 1000 4000 2000 0.4 0.5
600 1600 1000 4000 0.6 0.4
1000 1000 2000 2000 0.5 0.5
1060 460 1933 467 0.55 0.99
600 1000 1000 2000 0.6 0.5
400 1000 500 2000 0.8 0.5
350 700 375 1000 0.93 0.7
300 461 250 479 1.2 0.96
1600 1000 4000 2000 0.4 0.5
1066 2400 1914 8000 0.56 0.3
CROS STRAT
Surface Area (A) Volume (V) Remaped Ratio A/V
ERATION 02
F
Figure 1.4. Generation 1- Sequence 1
G2.1
G2.2
G2.4
G2.3
G2.5
Generation 1 is created randomly and ranked according F E (minimalESurface Area D for maximum to theAfitness criteria D = A/V). The C D individualsAare rankedEfrom left (fittest Volume A F C individual) to rightB(least fit individual). ItBis observed that larger unified phenotypes appear to be fitter individuals. 460fit 1000 1000 As well, the lack of1000 presence of600 genes E and D in the least 1000 467 2000 2000 2000 individuals, and the repeated 0.6 presence of0.5that same genes 0.99 0.5 0.5 in the 4 fittest individuals determine that this are a ‘good’ genes for the fitness criteria. Surface Areaconsidered (A)
G2.6
G2.7
G2.8
G2.9
G2.10
On the other hand, both genes B and A appear sytemA A fit individuals, B to D B atically in between the least enabling A A D E B conclude that this genes are not helping to achieve fit E C D B individuals. However geneDA does appear in the fittest individual’s genome. It is observed as well that individ1000 700 461 1000 2400 uals with more2000 complex geometries, containing 479 higher 2000 1000 8000 0.5to have less 0.7 chances0.96 amount of faces, of be0.5 appear to 0.3 coming fit individuals.
Volume (V) Remaped Ratio A/V
te 60o from er. an
Mean Fitness FitnessValue: Value:0.519997796 0.633827921 Mean SD Factor: Factor:0.253603452 0.251787385 SD
GRAPH G1
1.8
In order to obtain a fitter population, a Breeding strategy is defined. By breeding the fittest individual (G1.3 )with the least fit (G1.10), the second fittest (G1.5) with the second least fit (G1.2), etc it is possible to expect a decrease of the Standard Deviation, and, as a consequence, an increase of the Mean Fitness value, for the next generation.
1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 -0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
10
ROSSOVER
+
1
Figure 1.6. Deviation Graph for Generation 1- Sequence 1
SD Factor: 0.251787385
GRAPH G1
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2
GENE POOL GENE POOL CROSSOVER STRATEGY 1
1 0.8
SEQUENCE 1 | GENERATION 02
0.6 0.4 0.2 -0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
A
0.6
0.8
1
B
+
G1.3 G1.10 Copy and move 1 A B unit A along X axis. A D E and move F 1 Copy BREADING LOGIC 1 + along unit X axis.
Rotate 45o from center. B XY Plan Rotate 45o from center. XY Plan
CROSSOVER A B D 2 LOGICA1 STRATEGY BREADING RATION 01
RATION 01
C
+
E
F
G2.2 G1.3 G2.6 A B FITNESS CRITERIA 01 | Surface Area / Volume D D E D
D
E
F
In order defined Breeding Copy and move 1 to create Scale 2Generation from center 2, the Un-uniform scale strategy is applied through a Crossover strategy that unit along Z axis. X*1, Y*2, Z*1 C D E consists of crossing the 2 first genes in a parent’s genome with 1the last Scale gene2of thecenter other parent’s genome. Once Copy and move from Un-uniform scale unit along Zagain, axis. individuals are evaluated under X*1,the Y*2,same Z*1 fitness criteria and ranked in order to create the next generation. Most of the observations detected in the previous generation are repeated and proved in Generation 2.
Rotate 6 center. F ZX Plan Rotate 6 center. ZX Plan
G
G2.1
Figure 1.7. Crossover Strategy G1.5 1 G1.3 for Generation 2- Sequence
A D G1.3 E A 1600 D 4000 E
E D G1.5 C E 1600 D 4000 C
1600 4000 0.4
1600 4000 0.4
0.4
0.4
G2.1
G2.2
A D G2.1 F A 1000 D 2000 F
E D G2.2 B E 1000 D 2000 B
0.5
0.5
1000 1000 Surface Area (A) 2000 2000 Volume (V) 0.5 0.5 Remaped Ratio A/V
G1.8
G1.7
G1.6
G1.4
G1.1
G1.2
G1.10
E A G1.9 D E A 1600 4000 D
D E G1.8 B D 1000 E 2000 B
F C G1.7 D F 1060 C 1933 D
B D G1.6 A B 1066 D 1914 A
D F G1.4 B D 600 F 1000 B
A B G1.1 C A 400 B 500 C
A A G1.2 B A 350 A 375 B
B A G1.10 F B 300 A 250 F
1000 2000 0.5
1060 1933 0.55
1066 1914 0.56
600 1000 0.6
400 500 0.8
350 375 0.93
300 250 1.2
+
RATION 02
RATION 02
G1.9
A D D D
0.4
0.5
1600 4000 0.4
0.56
0.55
0.6
0.8
0.93
G
1.2
CROS STRAT
CROS STRAT
G2.3
G2.4
G2.5
G2.6
G2.7
G2.8
G2.9
G2.10
E A G2.3 C E 600 A 1000 C
D E G2.4 B D 1000 E 2000 B
F C G2.5 A F 460 C 467 A
B D G2.6 D B 2400 D 8000 D
D E G2.7 B D 1000 E 2000 B
A B G2.8 D A 1000 B 2000 D
A A G2.9 C A 700 A 1000 C
B A G2.10 E B 461 A 479 E
600 1000 0.6
1000 2000 0.5
460 467 0.99
2400 8000 0.3
1000 2000 0.5
1000 2000 0.5
700 1000 0.7
461 479 0.96
0.6
0.99
0.5
G3.1
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.96
Surface Area (A) Figure 1.9. Generation 2 - Sequence 1 Volume (V) Remaped Ratio A/V
Mean Fittness Value: 0.604743242
Mean Fitness Value: 0.604743242 SD Factor: 0.207209498 SD Factor: 0.207209498
APH G2
2,5
As expected, it is observed that the Mean fitness value is increased as all of the individuals are getting closer to this value. On the other hand the Standard Deviation factor decreases. This means that the whole population has gotten fitter compared to Generation 1, but there has been a reduction in the variation.
2 1,5 1 0,5 0 -0,2
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
Mean Fittness Value: 0.519997796 SD Factor: 0.253603452
1,4
Figure 1.10. Deviation Graph for Generation 2 - Sequence 1
11
G1.3 G2.6 A B SEQUENCE 1 | GENERATION 03 D D BREADING LOGIC 2 + E D G1.3 G2.6 ERATION CROSSOVER STRATEGY 2
A D E
01
G1.3
+
B D D
G1.9
G1.8
G1.7
E D C
E A D
D E B
F C D
1600 4000 0.4
1600 4000 0.4
1000 2000 0.5
1060 1933 0.55
G2.2
G2.4
G2.7
G2.8
G2.3
G2.9
G1.5
A D E
A D D D
+
A D G3.1 D FITNESS CRITERIA 01 | Surface Area / Volume D 1600 4000 0.4
CROSSOVER For the creation of Generation 3, new Breeding and STRATEGY 2 Crossover stategies are defined. The fittest individual from Generation 1 breeds with the fittest individual from Generation 2. The second fittest of Gen.1 with the second fittest of Gen.2, and so on. The Crossover strategy consists G1.6 G1.10 genome and G1.4first 2 genes G1.1 in taking the fromG1.2 one parent’s the last 2 genes from the other parent’s genome. This A A B B D results in a longer genome structure, composed by 4 A A B F D A C B taken from genes. The B initital observations Generation F 1, and repeated in Generation 2 are further observed 1066 600 400 and in Generation 3. 350 Simplified300 1914 proven 1000 500 375 250geometries are 0.56 0.6 in between 0.8 0.93 1.2 well as genes E predominant fit individuals, as and D. On the other hand, genes A and B still prove to be less efficient genes for this fitness criteria.
Figure 1.11. Crossover Strategy for Generation 3 - Sequence 1 Mean Fittness Value: 0.604743242 SD Factor: 0.207209498
ERATION 02 GRAPH
2,5
G2
2 1,5
G2.1
G2.6
1 0,5
B D D
0 -0,2
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
2400 8000 0.3
1,6
GRAPH G3
1,4 1,2 1
G2.5
A D F
E D B
D E B
D E B
A B D
E A C
A A C
B A E
F C A
1000 2000 0.5
1000 2000 0.5
1000 2000 0.5
1000 2000 0.5
1000 2000 0.5
600 1000 0.6
700 1000 0.7
461 479 0.96
460 467 0.99
1,4
Mean Fittness Value: 0.519997796 SD Factor: 0.253603452 1,8
G3.1
G2.10
0,8
Mea SD F
GRAPH G2
2,5 2
0,6 0,4 0,2 0 -0,4
-0,2
0
ERATION 03
APH G2
1,5
Mean Fittness Value: 0.604743242 SD Factor: 0.207209498
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1
1,4
0,5 0 -0,2
2,5 2 1,5 1
G3.1
G3.2
G3.6
G3.3
G3.4
G3.7
G3.8
G3.9
A D D D
E D D F
E A D B
D E E B
F C E B
B D B D
D F A C
A B A C
A A A E
B A F C
2400 8000 0.3
1600 4000 0.4
1800 4000 0.45
1839 3732 0.49
622 905 0.69
700 1000 0.7
624 707 0.88
437 479 0.91
G3.10
0
Mea SD F
G3.5
1
1
GRAPH G3
1
1
0
0
0,5 0
16000 128000 0.125
4000 16000 0.250
Figure -0,2 1.13. Generation 0 0,23 -Sequence 0,4 1
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
Mean Mean Fittness Value: 0.519997796 Fitness Value: 0.633827921 SD Factor: 0.253603452 SD Factor: 0.251787385 1,8
Since the strategy consists in the breeding of the fittest with the fittest individuals (from Gen. 1 and 2) and the least fitt with the least fitt (from Gen. 1 and 2.) it is to expect that there is an increase in the Standard Deviation, as well as a decrease in the Mean Fitness value. This means that the variation has increased , although there are less individuals closer to the Mean value. However the overall Mean Fitness is higher than in both other generations.
1,6
APH G3
1,4 1,2 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 -0,4
12
-0,2
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
Figure 1.14. Deviation Graph for Generation 3- Sequence 1
0
0 -0,4
-0,2
SEQUENCE 1 | OBSERVATIONS
BREADING LOGIC 2
CROSSO STRATEG
GENERATION 01 G1.3
G1.5
G1.9
G1.8
G1.7
G1.6
G1.4
G1.1
G1.2
G1.10
A D E
E D C
E A D
D E B
F C D
B D A
D F B
A B C
A A B
B A F
1600 4000 0.4
1600 4000 0.4
1000 2000 0.5
1060 1933 0.55
1066 1914 0.56
600 1000 0.6
400 500 0.8
350 375 0.93
300 250 1.2
G2.6
G2.1
G2.2
G2.4
G2.7
G2.8
G2.3
G2.9
G2.10
G2.5
B D D
A D F
E D B
D E B
D E B
A B D
E A C
A A C
B A E
F C A
1000 2000 0.5
1000 2000 0.5
1000 2000 0.5
1000 2000 0.5
1000 2000 0.5
600 1000 0.6
700 1000 0.7
461 479 0.96
460 467 0.99
1600 4000 0.4
GENERATION 02
2400 8000 0.3
GRAPH G2
GENERATION 03
-0,2
G3.1
G3.2
G3.6
G3.3
G3.4
G3.7
G3.8
G3.9
A D D D
E D D F
E A D B
D E E B
F C E B
B D B D
D F A C
A B A C
A A A E
B A F C
2400 8000 0.3
1600 4000 0.4
1800 4000 0.45
1839 3732 0.49
622 905 0.69
700 1000 0.7
624 707 0.88
437 479 0.91
16000 128000 0.125
4000 16000 0.250
G3.10
G3.5
GRAPH G3
-0,4
Figure 1.15. Ranked Phenotypes of Generation 1, 2 and 3 Generation1:1 GENERATION Mean Fitness Value: 0.519997796 Mean Fittness Value: 0.633827921 Standard Deviation: 0.251787385 Standard Deviation: 0.253603452
2,5
2
Generation2:2 GENERATION Mean Fitness Value: 0.604743242 Mean Fittness Value: 0.604743242 Standard Deviation: 0. 207209498 Standard Deviation: 0.207209498
1,5
Generation3:3 GENARATION Mean Fitness Value: 0.633827921 Mean Fittness Value: 0.519997796 Standard Deviation: 0.253603452 Standard Deviation: 0.207209498
1
Comparing the three graphs it is detected that there is a constant shift to the right (increase in the Mean Fitness value), meaning that with each generation the average value in the population has gotten fitter than it was in the previous one.
0,5
0 -0,4
-0,2
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
1,6
Figure 1.16. Comparative Deviation Graph -Gen. 1,2, 3
13
SEQUENCE
02
SEQUENCE 2 | STRATEGY INTRODUCTION In Sequence 2, a body plan is introduced, and the primitive geometry is subdivided into 4 body parts, in which each gene is instructed to affect a single one. In addition, 2 new genes are added to the gene pool as well as slight modifications applied to some of the instruction’s values, not to their actions. This modifications are made in order to avoid having un-unified individuals with separate geometries, as they appeared in Sequence 1. The genes generating this phenotypical problem are detected and adjusted.
BODY PLAN
H
GENE POOL
B C
2
1 4
The length of the genome is increased, by the addition of 3 genes to the previous genome structure. Two new fitness criteria are defined: 1-maximisation of shadow projection from a normal vector with minimum volume, and 2- height maximisation. Mutation strategies are incorporated in Generation 5 and 6. Once breeding and crossover strategies are defined, Generations 4,5,6 (with 10 individuals each) are produced in Grasshopper, and ranked according to the 2 new fitness criteria.
3
E
A D
GENE A. Copy and move 2mm along X axis. GENE B. Copy and move 2mm along Z axis. GENE C. Rotate 45o from center. XY Plan GENE D. Scale 2 from centroid GENE E. UN-uniform scale X*1, Y*2, Z*1 GENE F. Rotate 60o from center ZX Plan GENE G. Rotate 30o from center. ZY Plan GENE H. Mirror YZ Plan
F G Figure 2.1. Body plan assigned to primitive cube
GENE MODIFICATION move: 5mm -> 2mm
FITNESS CRITERIA
Figure 2.2. Diagram of modifications on phenotype
01.
SHADOW PROJECTION
02. HEIGHT
VOLUME Figure 2.3. Diagram for Fitness Criteria 1-Shadow/Projection
BREEDING STRATEGY TOP 5 of FC1
FITTEST with FITTEST
Figure 2.4. Diagram for Fitness Criteria 2 -Height
MUTATION STRATEGY TOP 5 of FC2
GENERATION 4 - GENERATION 5 | Mut. Probability: 30% Type: Insertion + B GENERATION 5 - GENERATION 6 | Mut. Probability: 20% Type: Insertion + C H
CROSSOVER STRATEGY 4 from S/V Rank
2 from Height Rank
15
SEQUENCE 2 | GENERATION 04
FITNESS CRITERIA 01 | Shadow Projection / Volume
Figure 2.5. Generation 4 - Sequence 2 ranked according to fitness criteria 01-Shadow projection/Volume
FITNESS CRITERIA 02 | Height
Figure 2.6. Generation 4 -Sequence 2 ranked according to fitness criteria 02- Height
For Generation 4, 10 individuals are created randomly with genomes conformed by 6 genes. Individuals are ranked according to both fitness criteria, It is observed that the fittest individual under criteria 1 (G4.10) results to be the least fit individual under criteria 2, since both criterions are working against each other. In this dual-parameter optimisation process, differential weights will be applied to the criteria assigned through the crossover strategy. For this sequence, the aim is the achievement of the fittest possible individual, rather than having a whole population of fitter individuals.
This will define the breeding and crossover strategies for the creation of Generations 5 and 6. By breeding the 5 fittest individuals from criteria 1 with those of criteria 2, its is expected to find an increase in the Standard Deviation values, meaning a higher variation. This will increase the possibilities of finding a fitter individual. In order to allow criterion 1 (Shadow projection/Volume) to have a bigger weight than criterion 2 (Height) on the next generation, it is defined that for the crossover strategy 4 genes will be taken from the first parent, while only 2 genes will be taken from the second one.
In order to allow a comparison of the three generations (4,5 and 6) with a Graph deviation map, it is necessary to have a unique fitness value for the individuals of each generation. Therefore, through remapping the values obtained under both criterias, it is able to achieve a unique value which embeds them all. To do so, the ideal and least ideal situations for both criterions are considered. In this way, the domains can be defined for each case ( (0-1.64) for criterion 1, and (5-320) for criterion 2) , and the target domain is defined in between (0-1).
16
Figure 2.7. Remapped values for Generation 4
SEQUENCE 2 | GENERATION 05 Breeding Strategy
Crossover Strategy
Figure 2.8. Generation 5- Sequence 2, Breeding Strategy
From the remapped ranking, It is detected that gene B is present in the genomes of the three fittest individuals. Therefore, through insertion mutation type, and a probability of 30%, it is decided that this gene will be inserted to the end of the mutated genomes.
FITNESS CRITERIA 01 | Shadow Projection / Volume
Fig. 2.9. Crossover Strategy Generation 5 - Sequence 2
Figure 2.9. Generation 5 - Sequence 2, ranked according to fitness criteria 01- Shadow projection/Volume
FITNESS CRITERIA 02 | Height
Figure 2.10. Generation 5 - Sequence 2, ranked according to fitness criteria 02- Height
For Generation 5, the same remapping criteria than for previous Generation 4 is applied. It is now possible to start detecting some similiarities in between the individual’s phenotypes sharing the same ranking position (Figure 2.15). Whilst the fittest individual according to criterion 1 for the previous generation was the smallest individual, in Generation 5 the second smallest individual occupies the first place in this ranking. As well, the biggest individual in both generations occupies the 7th place in the 1st criterion rankings. Figure 2.11. Remapped values for Generation 5
17
SEQUENCE 2 | GENERATION 06 Breeding Strategy
Crossover Strategy
Figure 2.12. Generation 6 of Sequence 2, Breeding Strategy
For the creation of Generation 6, the same breeding and crossover stategies are maintained. A modification in the mutation strategy is applied; 2 genes (H-C) are now inserted at the end of the mutated genomes, aiming to improve the fitness of these individuals. Mutation probability is decreased by 10%, with respect to Generation 5. FITNESS CRITERIA 01 | Shadow Projection / Volume
Figure 2.12. Crossover Strategy, Generation 6- Sequence 2
Figure 2.13. Generation 5- Sequence 2,ranked according to fitness criteria 01-Shadow Projection/Volume
FITNESS CRITERIA 02 | Height
Figure 2.13. Generation 5- Sequence 2, ranked according to fitness criteria 02- Height
For Generation 6, the same remapping criteria than for previous generations 4 and 5 is applied. This generation further proves that smaller phenotypes make fitter individuals according to criterion 1. On the other hand, the contrary appears to be happening for criterion 2, where the biggest phenotypes make fitter individuals. It is important to mention that the mutation strategy was carefully manipulated. The genes inserted in the mutated genomes are not random genes, but selected genes that are detected to improve the fitness of individuals.
18
Figure 2.14. Remapped values for Generation 6
SEQUENCE 2 | OBSERVATIONS FITNESS CRITERIA 01 | Shadow Projection / Volume
GENERATION 04
G4.10
G4.8
G4.1
G4.9
G4.5
G4.6
G4.4
G4.7
G4.3
G4.2
GENERATION 05 G5.2
G5.8
G5.5
G5.6
G5.10
G5.3
G5.9
G5.7
G5.1
G5.4
GENERATION 06
G6.1
G6.9
G6.7
G6.8
G6.2
G6.5
G6.4
G6.3
G6.10
G6.6
Figure 2.15. Generation 4, 5, 6. Ranked phenotypes according to Fitness criteria 01- Shadow/Projection FITNESS CRITERIA 01
Shadow Projection / Volume
FITNESS CRITERIA 02 | Height
GENERATION GENERATION GENERATION GENERATION GENERATION GENERATION 04 04 04GENERATION 04 04 G4.7 04 GENERATION GENERATIONG4.4 GENERATION GENERATION G4.10GENERATION G4.8 G4.1 G4.9 G4.5 G4.6 G4.3 GENERATION GENERATION GENERATION GENERATION G4.1 G4.9 G4.5 G4.6 G4.4 G4.7 G4.3 GENERATION G4.10 G4.8 G4.1 G4.9 G4.5 G4.6 G4.7G4.3 G4.2 G4.3 GENERATION G4.10 G4.8 G4.1 G4.9 G4.5 G4.6 G4.4 G4.7 G4.3 G4.10 G4.8 G4.1 G4.9 G4.10 G4.5 G4.8 G4.1 G4.6 G4.4 G4.9 G4.5 G4.7 G4.1 G4.6 G4.4 G4.10 G4.8 G4.7 G4.6 G4.1 G4.3 G4.9G4.2 G4.5 G4.10 G4.8 G4.1 G4.9 G4.5 G4.6 G4.4 G4.7 G4.3 G4.10 G4.4 G4.8 G4.9 G4.5 G4.4 G4.10 G4.8 G4.1 G4.9 G4.5 G4.6 G4.4 G4.7 G4.3 G4.2 G4.10 G4.8 G4.1 G4.9 G4.5 G4.6 G4.4 G4.7 G4.3 G4.2 G4.2GENERATION G4.2 G4.2 G4.2 G4.2 04 04 04 04 04 G4.1 G4.9 04 G4.5 G4.6 G4.4 G4.7 G4.3 04 G4.2 04 04 04G4.6 G4.7 04G4.6 04 G4.9G4.4 G4.10 G4.804 G4.1 G4.9 G4.10 G4.5G4.7 G4.6 G4.4 G4.7G4.4 G4.3 G4.8 G4.1 G4.9 G4.5 G4.6 G4.4 G4.7 G4.3 G4.4 G4.2 G4.10 G4.8 G4.1 G4.9 G4.5 G4.7 G4.3 G4.10 G4.8 G4.1 G4.9 G4.5 G4.6 G4.4 G4.3 G4.10 G4.8 G4.1 G4.9 G4.5 G4.6 G4. G4.10 G4.8 G4.1 G4.9 G4.5 G4.6 G4.4 G4.8 G4.1 G4.9 G4.5 G4.3 G4.4 G4.7 G4.3 G4.10 G4.8 G4.1 G4.5 G4.6 G4.4 G4.7 G4.3 G4.10 G4.8 G4.1 G4.9 G4.5 G4.6 G4.7 G4.3 G4.2 G4.2 G4.2 G4.2 G4.2 G4.2 G4.1 G4.9 G4.5 G4.6 G4.4 G4.7 G4.7 G4.3 G4.10 G4.10 G4.8 G4.8 G4.1 G4.9 G4.9G4.5 G4.5 G4.5G4.6 G4.6 G4.6 G4.4 G4.4 G4.4G4.1 G4.2 G4.7 G4.3 G4.9 G4.5 G4.6 G4.4 G4.3 G4.2 G4.2 G4.8 G4.1 G G4.2 G4.10 G4.8 G4.9 G4.5 G4.6 G4.4 G4.10 G4.8 G4.1 G4.10 G4.8 G4.1 G4.9 G4.5 G4.6 G4.4 G4.7 G4.3 G4.1 G4.9 G4.7G4.3 G4.3G4.10 G4.10 G4.8 G4.1 G4.7 G4.2
RATION ATION04 G4.8 04
RATION ATION05 05
G4.2
GENERATION GENERATION GENERATION 05 05 05GENERATION GENERATION GENERATION GENERATION GENERATION GENERATION 05 GENERATION 05 05 G5.2 05 05 0505
G4.2
GENERATION 05 GENERATION 05 G5.5 G5.8
GENERATION GENERATION 05 GENERATION GENERATION 05 GENERATION GENERATION GENERATION 05 05G5.10 G5.6 G5.3 G5.7 G5.1 05G5.3 05 05 G5.2 G5.7 G5.1 G5.6 G5.7 G5.8 G5.5 G5.6 G5.10 G5.3 G5.7 G5.6 G5.10 G5.7G5.2 G5.2 G5.8 G5.5 G5.3 G5.6 G5.1 G5.4 G5.1 G5.3 G5.5 G5.3 G5.7G5.1 G5.1 G5.8 G5.10 G5.4G5.7 G5.5 G5.4G5.10 G5.7 G5.1 G5.9 G5.4 G5.4
G5.4 G5.6 G5.10 G5.8G5.5 G5.3 G5.5 G5.1 G5.2 G5.8 G5.6 G5.2 G5.8 G5.7 G5.1 G5.8G5.10 G5.5 G5.6 G5.10 G5.6 G5.10 G5.3 G5.2 G5.5 G5.6 G5.10 G5.3 G5.2 G5.5 G5.2 G5.8 G5.8 G5.5 G5.6 G5.10 G5.2 G5.3 G5.4 G5.4 G5. G5.9 G5.5 G5.6 G5.10 G5.3 G5.7 G5.1 G5.9 G5.9 G5.9 G5.9 G5.4 G5.9 G5.9 G5.9 G5.9 G5.2G5.6 G5.8 G5.5 G5.9 G5.6G5.2 G5.10 G5.3 G5.3 G5.7 G5.1 G5.2 G5.8 G5.5 G5.6 G5.10 G5.3 G5.7 G5.1 G5.4 G5.2 G5.8 G5.5 G5.6 G5.10 G5.3 G5.8 G5.5 G5.6 G5.10 G5.3 G5.7 G5.1 G5.2 G5.8 G5.5 G5.6 G5.7 G5.10 G5.1 G5.3 G G5.2 G5.8 G5.5 G5.6 G5.10 G5.3 G5.8 G5.5 G5.10 G5.3 G5.7 G5.1 G5.7 G5.1 G5.2 G5.8 G5.5 G5.6 G5.10 G5.7 G5.1 G5.2 G5.8 G5.5 G5.6 G5.10 G5.3 G5.7 G5.1 G5.4 G5.4 G5.4 G5.4 G5.4 G5.4 .5 G5.6 G5.10 G5.3 G5.7 G5.1 G5.2 G5.8 G5.8 G5.5 G5.5 G5.5 G5.6 G5.6 G5.10 G5.10 G5.3 G5.8 G5.7 G5.7 G5.1 G5.1 .6 G5.10 G5.3 G5.7 G5.1 G5.2 G5.9G5.6 G5.4 G5.4 G5.2 G5.8 G5.5 G5.6 G5.4 G5.2 G5.5 G5.6 G5.10 G5.3 G5.2 G5.8 G5.5 G G5.2 G5.8 G5.5 G5.6 G5.10 G5.3 G5.7 G5.1 G5.10 G5.3 G5.9 G5.9 G5.9 G5.2 G5.8 G5.3 G5.7 G5.1 G5.9 G5.9 G5.4 G5.9 G5.9 G5.9 G5.4 G5.4 G5.9 G5.9 G5.9 G5.9 G5.9 G5.9 G5.9
RATION ATION06 06
GENERATION GENERATION GENERATION 06 06 06GENERATION GENERATION GENERATION GENERATION GENERATION 06 GENERATION 06 06 06 0606
GENERATION 06
GENERATION 06 GENERATION 06
GENERATION GENERATION 06 GENERATION 06 06
GENERATION 06
GENERATION 06
GENERATION GENERATION 06 06
G6.9 G6.7 G6.8 G6.5 G6.4 G6.1 G6.2 G6.5 G6.3 G6.6 G6.5 G6.4 G6.7 G6.8 G6.4 G6.1G6.2 G6.10 G6.9 G6.7 G6.2 G6.7 G6.4 G6.1G6.9G6.7 G6.9 G6.7 G6.3 G6.9 G6.8 G6.7 G6.4 G6.5 G6.4G6.8 G6.7 G6.1 G6.1 G6.8 G6.9 G6.5 G6.1 G6.9 G6.6 G6.7 G6.5 G6.2 G6.4 G6.8 G6.9 G6.5 G6.4 G6.6 G6.9 G6.2 G6.7 G6.8 G6.8 G6.5G6.8 G6.4 G6.2 G6.4 G6.2 G6.3 G6.9 G6.6 G6.3 G6.6G6.2 G6.2G6.5 G6.3 G6.3 G6.2G6.8 G6.3 G6.1 G6.5 G6.6 G6.1 G6.3 G6.2 G6.3 G6.6G6.8G6.10 G6.10 G6.10 G6.10 G6.6 G6.10 G6.10 G6.10 G6.8 G6.5 G6.4 G6.10 G6.2 G6.1 G6.3 G6.9 G6.8 G6.7 G6.8 G6.5 G6.8 G6.4 G6.6 G6.10 G6.9 G6.7 G6.8 G6.5 G6.4 G6.1 G6.2 G6.3 G6.6 G6.9 G6.7 G6.8 G6.5 G6.4 G6.1 G6.9 G6.7 G6.8 G6.5 G6.4 G6.1 G6.9 G6.7 G6.8 G6.6 G6.5 G6.1 G6.9 G6.7 G6.8 G6.5 G6.3 G6.4 G6.1 G6.7 G6.5 G6.4 G6.4 G6.9 G6.7 G6.8 G6.5 G6.4 G6.1 G6.9 G6.7 G6.5 G6.4 G6.1 G6.2 G6.3 G6.6 G6.2 G6.2 G6.3 G6.2 G6.2 G6.2G6.5 G6.3 G6.3G6.7 G6.6 G6.6 G6.2 G6.3 G6.1 G6.3 G6.6 G6.3 G6.6G6.9 G6.8 G6.5 G6.4 G6.10 G6.9 G6.2 G6.7 G6.8 G6.8 G6.9 G6.5 G6.4 G6.4 G6.2 G6.10 G6.1 G6.8 G6.4 G6.10 G6.2 G6.3G6.9 G6.6 G6.1 G6.10 G6.2 G6.3 G6.6 G6.7 G6.1 G6.6 G6.7 G6.8 G6.5 G6.4 G6.1 G6.9 G6.7 G6.1 G6.9 G6.8 G6.5 G6.4 G6.10 G6.10 G6.10 G6.9 G6.7 G6.5 G6.1 G6.7 G6.8 G6.5 G6.4 G6.1 G6.2G6.2 G6.2 G6.3 G6.6 G6.2 G6.3 G6.6 G6.2 G6.3 G6.10 G6.10 G6.10 G6.6 G6.10 G6.10 G6.10 FITNESS CRITERIA 01 Shadow Projection / Volume w Projection / Volume FITNESS CRITERIA 01 Shadow Projection Volume 01 FITNESS CRITERIA Shadow Projection / Volume FITNESS CRITERIA 01 FITNESS/ CRITERIA FITNESS CRITERIA 01 Shadow Projection / Volume Shadow Projection / Volume Shadow Projection / Volume FITNESS 01 FITNESS CRITERIA 01 Shadow Projection / Volume TNESS CRITERIA 01 Shadow Projection / Volume Shadow Projection / Volume FITNESS CRITERIA 01 CRITERIA Shadow Projection / 01 Volume ction / Volume Figure012.16.Shadow Generation 4, 5, 6.01Ranked phenotypes according to Fitness criteriaShadow 02- Projection Height FITNESS 01 Shadow Projection FITNESS CRITERIA 01/ Volume Shadow Projection / VolumeCRITERIA FITNESS CRITERIA 01 Volume 01 ShadowFITNESS Projection / Volume01 CRITERIA FITNESS/CRITERIA Shadow Projection / Volume ShadowFITNESS Projection / Volume01 Shadow Projection / Volume FITNESS CRITERIACRITERIA Projection / CRITERIA Volume / Volume FITNESS Shadow Projection Volume FITNESS CRITERIA 01 Shadow Shadow Projection Volume FITNESS CRITERIA 01 01 Shadow Projection / Volume FITNESS CRITERIA 01 Shadow Projection / Volume FITNESS CRITERIA FITNESS CRITERIA 01 Shadow Projection / Volume Shadow Projection // Volume FITNESS CRITERIA 01 Shadow / Volume FITNESS CRITERIA 01 Projection /Projection Volume
1 G6.7 6.1
5
Through analyzing the resulting phenotypes it is possible to detect similarities in between the individuals that share the same ranking position throughout the three generations. Certain patterns are observed such as the approximation in volume size as well as the arrangement and organization of their entire morphology. In accordance to the general startegies developed in Sequence 2, it is observed that populations increase their Standard Deviation, therefore their variation, from generation to generation. Mean Fitness values are, on the other hand, progressively reduced. This allows for the fittest overall individual to appear in Generation 6, as Figure 2.17. Deviation graph with remapped values from Gen. 4, 5, 6
Generation 4 SD Generation 5 SD Generation 6 SD
Generation 4 Generation 5 Generation 6
19
SEQUENCE
03
SEQUENCE 3 | STRATEGY INTRODUCTION The purpose of Sequence 3 is to explore the potential of Octopus1 plug-in within Rhino to simulate a genetic experiment for the evolution of Urban Blocks. In this part of the sequence, the primitive is changed from an abstract geometry (cube) to an urban block. The Brunswick Center2 is taken as a case study, and used as a new primitive for this section. Meanwhile, a body plan is introduced for the primitive, with a subdivision into 5 ‘body parts’: internal bay, external bay, courtyard, tower unit, and external bay. Octopus/Gh is utilised as the evolutionary solver for the generation of new populations. Different parameters, that affect certain body parts, are defined, and now build up
the extensive new genepool, containing over 900 genes. Figure 3.1 shows the corresponding parameters for each body part. Moreover, the adjustment of one parameter has an effect on other body parts. For instance, changes of the external bay depth will also impact the depth of internal bay and courtyard. Through Octopus, ten generations are created in a fairly short period of time. The running simulation is stoped at generations 3, 6 and 10 for analysis and evaluation. Three fitness criteria are defined and taken into account for analysis: minimum volume of blocks, maximum courtyard exposure, and maximum building exposure.
BODY PLAN
PARAMETERS
Figure 3.1. Body plan of Brunswick Center and corresponding parameters
FITNESS CRITERIA
MUTATION STRATEGY - GENERATION 3 - GENERATION 6 | Mut. probability: 0.5 - GENERATION 6 - GENERATION 10 | Mut. probability: 0.7
The mutation probability can be controlled through sliders in Octopus. From generation 1 to generation 6, the mutation probability is of 50%, while from generation 6 to generation 10, it is increased to 70% in order to increase exploration.
. http://www.food4rhino.com/project/octopus?etx
1
. Davis, Maggie (2006-10-17). “Brunswick Centre”. Timeout.com. Retrieved 2013-08-16.
2
21
SEQUENCE 3 | GENERATION 3 Elitism: 0.5 Mut. Probability: 0.1 Mut. rate: 0.5 Crossover rate: 0.8
Figure 3.2. Generation 3 - Sequence 3 with three fitness criteria values
Figure 3.3. Convergence graph evaluated at generation 3
Ten individuals of Generation 3 are evaluated under three fitness criteria. The values obtained are remapped and added in order to rank them by their overall fitness value. As seen in Figure 3.2, G3.7 shows to be the fittest individual, and G3.10 the least fit individual. The convergence graph shows that from Generation 1 to generation 3 all three fitness criteria values are gradually converging towards their optimal solution. It is able to observe as well, from both graphs, that the courtyard exposure criterion is ‘pushing’ more. The solutions appear to be closer to the courtyard exposure axis, meaning that this criterion is achieving better results. Figure 3.4. Population distribution of Generation 3 in quadrant of three fitness criteria
22
SEQUENCE 3 | GENERATION 6 Elitism: 0.5 Mut. Probability: 0.1 Mut. rate: 0.5 Crossover rate: 0.8
Figure 3.5. Generation 6 -Sequence 3 with three fitness criteria values
Figure 3.6. Convergence graph evaluated at generation 6
Since the parameter settings used help achieved satisfying results in Generation 3, the settings are kept the same from Generation 3 to Generation 6. Whereas it is unanticipated that all three fitness values became less convergent after Generation 3 (See Figure3.6). However, it is observed that Generation 6 has increased its standard deviation, since their is an increase in the variation of the individual’s fitness values. It is observed that maintaining the same settings in Octopus, does not necessarily offer a constant behaviour throughout generations. G6.1, as the fittest one in Generation 6, is fitter than G3.7, and the least fit G6.9 is less fit than G3.10. Figure 3.7. Population distribution of Generation 6 in quadrant of three fitness criteria
23
SEQUENCE 3 | GENERATION 10 Elitism: 0.5 Mut. Probability: 0.1 Mut. rate: 0.7 Crossover rate: 0.8
Figure 3.8. Generation 10 of Sequence 3 with three fitness criteria values
Figure 3.9. Convergence graph stopped at generation 10
From Generation 6 to Generation 10, the mutation rate is increased from 0.5 to 0.7. Figure 3.9 shows how the fitness values related to the volume criterion became more convergent, whereas building exposure slightly decreases in convergence, and courtyard exposure mantains constant levels of convergence. The fittest individual in Generation 10 is G10.1, which turns to be less fit than G6.1 and fitter than G3.7. G10.9 is the least fit individual, but it is stilll fitter than both G6.9 and G3.10.
Figure 3.10. Population distribution of Generation 10 in quadrant of three fitness criteria
24
SEQUENCE 3 | OBSERVATIONS Generation 3 Generation 6 Generation 10
The value of three fitness criteria have been evaluated respectively.
FITNESS CRITERIA 02 MAXIMUM COURTYARD EXPOSURE
FITNESS CRITERIA 01 MINIMUM VOLUME [0.326]
6
[0.447]
6
[0.390]
5
[0.344]
25
[0.750]
[0.360]
5
4
FITNESS CRITERIA 03 MAXIMUM BUILDING EXPOSURE
20
4
[0.347]
3
3
2
2
15
10
5
00
.1
0.20
.3
0.40
.5
0.60
.7
0.8
[0.806]
0
0
0 -0.1
[0.750]
1
1
00
.1
0.20
.3
0.40
.5
0.60
.7
0.8
00
.2
0.40
.6
0.81
1.21
.4
Figure 3.10. Deviation graph of fitness criteria 1
Figure 3.11. Deviation graph of fitness criteria 2
Figure 3.12. Deviation graph of fitness criteria 3
For fitness criteria 1 (Figure 3.10), the mean fitness value increased from Generation 3 to Generation 10, whereas the standard deviation increased in Generation 6 and decreased in Generation 10 again.
For fitness criteria 2 (Figure 3.11), from Generation 3 to Generation 10, standard deviation constantly decreased and the mean fitness value increased.
For fitness criteria 3 (Figure 3.12), standard deviation slightly decreased from Generation 3 to Generation 6, and substantially decreased from Generation 6 to Generation 10, whie the mean fitness value rapidly increased.
3.5
[1.750] 3
Normal Distribution
2.5
[1.424]
2
For the overall fitness criteria (Figure 3.13), mean fitness value increased from Generation 3 to Generation 6, while standard deviation increased in Generation 6. From Generation 6 to Generation 10 the mean fitness value increased even more, as the standard deviation was considerably reduced.
[1.510]
1.5
1
0.5
Figure 3.13. Deviation graph of integrated fitness value
0 0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Fitness Values CONVERTED
Since the setting parameters in Octopus were kept same from Generation 3 to Generation 6, the overall performance of Generation 3 and Generation 6 are similar, in comparision to Generation 10. With the increase of the mutation probability from 0.5 to 0.7 at Generation 6, a
decrease in the standard deviation was observed, which means that the population of Generation 10 has less variation than previous generations. The relationship between mutation probability and standard deviation is subject to further testing.
25
SEQUENCE
04
SEQUENCE 4 | STRATEGY INTRODUCTION In this section, the superblock is increased to 16 units, and new strategies are developed. Previous fitness criteria, body plan and corresponding parameters are also adjusted. Through Octopus/Gh, 80 generations are evaluated and ranked according to three conflicting fitness criteria: maximum volume, maximum courtyard exposure and maximum street exposure (Figure 4.4).
PRIMITIVE
The logic and relations defined within each block , are further exploded and accentuated in the relations in between different blocks. A hierarchy of network systems is set, defining the differences between interior network boundaries and exterior boundaries (Figure 4.3).
SUPER BLOCK
Figure 4.1. Simplified primitive of Brunswick Center
The retail bay from the previous primitive (Sequence 3) is removed since it was limiting both the movement of other divisions as well as the courtyard area.
BODY PLAN Seven parts of the body plan are as follows: 04. EXTERNAL BAY 2 05. TOWER UNIT 06. COURTYARD 07. STREET
01. INTERNAL BAY 1 02. INTERNAL BAY 2 03. EXTERNAL BAY 1 5 1
Exterior Boundary
2 6
4
3
7
Figure 4.2. Body plan of primitive
Primary network Secondary network
No. of Genes: 900 Generation: 20 - 40 - 60 - 80 Population Size: 21
Figure 4.3 Plan and elevation of super block
FITNESS CRITERIA 01. MAXIMUM VOLUME
02. MAXIMUM COURTYARD EXPOSURE
03. MAXIMUM STREET EXPOSURE
Figure 4.4. Fitness criteria diagrams
27
SEQUENCE 4 | GENERATION 20 The 21 individuals from Generation 20 are evaluated and ranked according to the three fitness criteria. The 5 fittest and the 5 least fit individuals are analyzed.
Elitism: 0.3 Mut. Probability: 0.3 Mut. rate: 0.5 Crossover rate: 0.5
Fittest G20.10
G20.9
G20.16
3.975.300 1.636 199
G20.17
4.063.600 1.599 200
4.180.500 1.570 202
G20.14
4.023.500 1.574 202
3.880.200 1.647 197
Least fit G20.5
G20.8
G20.6
4.422.900 1.483 174
4.438.000 1.427 180
G20.4
4.397.700 1.451 187
G20.1
4.312.300 1.468 192
4.390.900 1.470 192
Volume Courtyard Exposure Street Exposure
Figure 4.5. Fitness value of 5 fittest individuals and 5 least fit individuals for Generation 20
35
30
Figure 4.6. Convergence graph of Generation 20
25
Street Exposure
Normal Distribution
20
Volume
Courtyard Exposure
Figure 4.7. Population distribution of Generation 20 in quadrant of three fitness criteria
28
15
1.32 10
Generation 20 5
0 0.8 0
1
1.2
1.4
Fitness Values Converted (SD)
Figure 4.8. Deviation graph of integrated fitness value of Generation 20
SEQUENCE 4 | GENERATION 40 After increasing the elitism parameter in Octopus at Generation 20, it is observed that there is a considerable decrease in variation for Generation 40, as well as a high increase in the mean fitness value.
Elitism: 0.8 Mut. Probability: 0.3 Mut. rate: 0.5 Crossover rate: 0.5
Fittest G40.12
G40.17
4.036.700 1.671 204
G40.13
G40.6
3.981.300 1.676 203
4.246.900 1.623 204
G40.2
4.171.900 1.613 206
3.983.900 1.607 206
Least fit G40.18
G40.14
G40.5
4.178.000 1.372 202
4.166.200 1.385 207
G40.10
G40.11
4.238.300 1.553 191
4.513.500 1.558 186
Volume Courtyard Exposure Street Exposure
Figure 4.9. Fitness value of 5 fittest individuals and 5 least fit individuals for Generation 40
35
Figure 4.10. Convergence graph of Generation 40
3.812.700 1.629 192
1.402
30
25
Street Exposure
20
Volume
Courtyard Exposure
Figure 4.11. Population distribution of Generation 40 in quadrant of three fitness criteria
Normal Distribution
15
1.327 10
Generation 20 Generation 40
5
0 0.8 0
1
1.2
1.4
Fitness Values Converted (SD)
1.6
Figure 4.12. Deviation graph of integrated fitness value of Generation 40
29
SEQUENCE 4 | GENERATION 60 In order to achieve more variety, “Elitism” is decreased to 0.2, and “Crossover rate” is increased to 0.8. Individuals gradually become fitter and fitter from Generation 20 to Generation 60, but Generation 60 fails in the achievement of a wider variety.
Elitism: 0.2 Mut. Probability: 0.3 Mut. rate: 0.5 Crossover rate: 0.8
Fittest G60.3
4
G60.9
4.478.900 1.660 206
G60.12
G60.7
4.191.100 1.667 206
4.447.600 1.633 209
G60.5
4.558.800 1.574 209
4.502.200 1.631 204
Least fit G60.15
4.510.000 1.494 202
G60.4
G60.2
4.446.000 1.518 204
G60.6
4.470.500 1.561 200
G60.17
4.610.100 1.563 198
3.606.500 1.728 202
Volume Courtyard Exposure Street Exposure
Figure 4.13. Fitness value of five most fittest individuals and five least fit individuals of Generation 60
40
Figure 4.14. Convergence graph of Generation 60
1.439 1.402
35
30
Street Exposure
Volume
Courtyard Exposure
Figure 4.15. Population distribution of Generation 60 in quadrant of three fitness criteria
30
Normal Distribution
25
20
15
Generation 20 Generation 40 Generation 60
1.327
10
5
0 0.8 0
0.2 1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Fitness Values Converted (SD)
Figure 4.16. Deviation graph of integrated fitness value of Generation 60
SEQUENCE 4 | GENERATION 80 With the insistance in trying to achieve more variety, both “Mutation probability” and “Mutation rate” are increased at Generation 60. As a result, Generation 80 slightly achieved an increase of its standard deviation, compared to both Generation 40 and Generation 60.
Elitism: 0.1 Mut. Probability: 0.6 Mut. rate: 0.8 Crossover rate: 0.8
Fittest G80.11
1
G80.19
4.297.500 1.681 209
G80.16
2
G80.12
3
4.444.600 1.630 206
4.354.400 1.664 207
G80.17
4.053.800 1.667 207
4.077.800 1.661 206
Least fit G80.15
4.602.800 1.437 195
G80.18
G80.14
4.505.700 1.470 195
G80.10
4.371.600 1.518 193
G80.1
4.532.200 1.452 198
4.017.400 1.533 203
Volume Courtyard Exposure Street Exposure
Figure 4.17 Fitness value of five most fittest individuals and five least fit individuals of Generation 80
40
Figure 4.18. Convergence graph of Generation 80
1.439
35
1.402
30
Street Exposure
25
1.432
Volume
Courtyard Exposure
Figure 4.19. Population distribution of Generation 80 in quadrant of three fitness criteria
Normal Distribution
20
15
Generation 20 Generation 40 Generation 60 Generation 80
1.327
10
5
0 0.8 0
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Fitness Values Converted (SD)
Figure 4.20. Deviation graph of integrated fitness value of Generation 80
31
SEQUENCE 4 | OBSERVATIONS
Primitive Block
G80.11
G80.19 1
2
Block:
Primitive
Block:
1-G80.11
Block:
2-G80.19
Block Length: Block Width: Street Width: External Bay Depth Internal Bay Depth
900 m 660 m 20 m [maximum] 20 m [minimum] 15 m 15 m
Block Length: Block Width: Street Width: External Bay Depth Internal Bay Depth
900 m 660 m 20.4 m [maximum] 20.4 m [minimum] 11 m 23 m
Block Length: Block Width: Street Width: External Bay Depth Internal Bay Depth
900 m 660 m 21 m [maximum] 21 m [minimum] 12 m 28.9 m
Plot coverage:
Plot coverage: 54%
FAR:
FAR: 1.99
2.9
Height [storey]: 1 [minimum]
1 [minimum]
6 [maximum]
23 [maximum]
22 [maximum]
Sun Exposure:
Sun Exposure:
11% Building
35% Building
30% Building Surface
13% Courtyard Surface
18% Courtyard Surface
12% Courtyard Surface
3890300
Volume
(remap: 0.28)
Courtyard Exposure
Courtyard Exposure
(remap: 0.19)
Volume
Courtyard Exposure
1664
(remap: 0.50)
(remap: 0.50)
Street Exposure
Street Exposure 209
(remap: 0.65)
4354400
(remap: 0.32)
1681
(remap: 0.19)
141
4297500
(remap: 0.31)
993
32
FAR:
4 [minimum]
Sun Exposure:
Street Exposure
41.7%
2.7
Height [storey]:
Height [storey]:
Volume
Plot coverage: 39.7%
207
(remap: 0.64)
G80.16
G60.03 3
4
Based on the evaluate result of fitness values of Generation 20, Generation 40, Generation 60, and Generation 80. The top 4 fittest individuals are ranked as following: G80.11, G80.19, G80.18, and G60.03. In comparison with the primitive super block, all of these four individual super blocks have better performance in aspect of three fitness criteria, which are maximum volume, maximum courtyard exposure, and maximum street exposure. Whereas fitter individuals of above three fitness criteria have been achieved, it is also important to assess these individuals in other aspects, which could provide a more comprehensive understanding towards current solutions. The four our individuals have fitter value in aspect of Plot coverage, FAR, sun exposure on building surface and courtyard surface. Variety of height have been achieved comparing with primitive super block.
Block:
3-G80.16
Block:
4-G60.03
Block Length: Block Width: Street Width: External Bay Depth Internal Bay Depth
900 m 660 m 20.6 m [maximum] 20.6 m [minimum] 11.7 m 29.5 m
Block Length: Block Width: Street Width: External Bay Depth Internal Bay Depth
900 m 660 m 20.3 m [maximum] 20.3 m [minimum] 11.4 m 30 m
Plot coverage:
Plot coverage: 39.4%
FAR:
39.5%
FAR: 2.37
Height [storey]:
Height [storey]: 1 [minimum]
1 [minimum]
23 [maximum]
21 [maximum]
Sun Exposure:
Volume
2.32
Sun Exposure: 32% Building
32% Building Surface
13% Courtyard Surface
11% Courtyard Surface
4444600
Volume
Courtyard Exposure
Courtyard Exposure (remap: 0.50)
(remap: 0.48)
206
(remap: 0.64)
There are still some limitations, Same area of blocks leads to grid street system. All the block areas increase and decrease together, always have some area, which lead to grid street network. More variety could be achieved via changing each block area independently. Besides, Generations could developed further than 80 with more population: In Sequence 4, the tests ended at Generation 80, the patterns of relationship between Octopus parameters and fitness values haven’t been in-depth explored. Running more generations with more population would be instrumental in this exploration.
1660
1630
Street Exposure
4478900
(remap: 0.32)
(remap: 0.32)
Observing super blocks from top view, it could be detected that main streets become primary network that separating and connecting each blocks, while the missing divisions of internal bay and external bay generated secondary network, which connecting adjacent courtyards.
Street Exposure
206
(remap: 0.64)
33
CONCLUSIONS
Through the work developed in this research, concepts from Evolution and Embryological Development (Evo-Devo) theories are investigated and applied as a design approach through Evolutionary Computational processes. The developed experiments are based on four main consecutive sequences, which start from applying standard operations to a simple abstract geometry and progressively become more complex once the application is considered for urban design. In the first sequences it was possible to create populations of individuals in an “analogical” way, by 3D modelling in Rhino environment simple geometrical operations that where applied to a basic primitive. The implementation of these simple actions and strategies allowed to have much control over this simplified evolutionary process. In both first sequences, a maximum of 2 criterions were defined. It was possible to easily manipulate the desired outcomes through the design of clear breeding and crossover strategies. It was quickly evidenced how the introduction of a body plan allows for much higher variation, even with a simple tool kit ( small genepool), and short genome structures. However, although somewhat harder than for the first experiments, it was still possible to predict and manipulate the outcomes through the strategies defined. Furthermore, with the introduction of Mutation operations it was possible to detect “helpful’ genes and to introduce them in a particular position that could ensure a gain in the fitness of the individual. These empirical simplified experiments helped gain a basic understanding of evolutionary algorithms, and how to think about the design of strategies for evolutionary processes. However, they did not yet fully prove up to what extend this processes can be implemented for design purposes.
For the final sequences, which aimed for a clear urban design application, more complex design experiments involving a larger number of parameters and criterions, were evaluated. The potential of Octopus/Gh plugin within Rhino as a tool for finding multiple optimisation solutions was studied through the simulation of a genetic experiment for the evolution of urban blocks. Much of the control that had been gained in previous simplified experiments was lost once this new digital environment was introduced However it was still possible to establish a strategy, by adjusting some variable values such as elitism, crossover rate, mutation probability and mutation rate. The utilisation of Octopus introduces a degree of complexity which enables to run a large number of generations in a short period of time, and to evaluate the optimal solution for up to 5 Fitness criteria, producing a range of optimised trade-off solutions between the extremes of each goal. This was proven to be an extremely useful tool for the application of evolutionary principles to design, and for the finding of optimal solutions, that would otherwise be impossible to anticipate.
Yue Zhu, Julia Hajnal, Camila Becerra February, 2016