Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Evolving Floorplans

joelsimon.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 110 posts

Re: Evolving Floorplans

#81

Post by jmilloy »

zellyn wrote: post #25
mkj wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you miss the part about "light on two sides of every room"? These evolved designs seem optimised for nothing that actually matters to human comfort.

I took this as an initial exploration of genetic algorithms for architecture. As such, the idea is more interesting than the specific parameters and weights chosen here. You'll notice as you scroll down that this article _does_ vary the parameters and weights. For instance, the one that optimizes for windows tends to create interior courtyards. I could imagine adding parameters and weights for thresholds, areas for c…

Credit to the author -- I think the optimized-for-windows results have been added since this was posted here.

Re: Evolving Floorplans

#82

Post by zellyn »

jmilloy wrote: post #81
zellyn wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took this as an initial exploration of genetic algorithms for architecture. As such, the idea is more interesting than the specific parameters and weights chosen here. You'll notice as you scroll down that this article _does_ vary the parameters and weights. For instance, the one that optimizes for windows tends to create interior courtyards. I could imagine adding parameters and weights for thresholds, areas for c…

Credit to the author -- I think the optimized-for-windows results have been added since this was posted here.

I posted my comment after reading the article, which included optimized-for-windows results. Of course, others may have had it sitting around in a browser tab for a while…

Re: Evolving Floorplans

#83

Post by dizzydot »

jmilloy wrote: post #2

These kinds of tools are mostly about the input constraints, heuristics, and weights. I'd love to see more about this with more practical constraints (rectilinear rooms and hallways, minimum area for cafetaria/gym, etc) and additional heuristics, such as window area in classrooms, number of hallways/intersections for ease-of-navigation, and building costs beyond just material use.

This is essentially what the author said in the summary.

Re: Evolving Floorplans

#84

Post by PhasmaFelis »

jethro_tell wrote: post #50
TeMPOraL wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about concrete 3D-printing? (I'm not even sure if it's real or feasible; I just remember a bunch of pop news articles with a video of a large CNC machine depositing concrete to construct a building.)

Concrete is manual 3D printing from 100+ years ago. =) I've seen a concrete 3d printer, but it doesn't look like it would be structural. i.e. not sure how you would print around full lengths of rebar?

These guys are building small houses with a thing that prints in layers just like a home 3D printer, using mortar instead of plastic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCzS2FZoB-I It looks like there's manually placed metal mesh for reinforcement.

Dunno what the quality's like, but it's there. It does seem like it would be tricky to scale to structures larger than the practical footprint of their printer, but maybe the thing could be mounted on wheels.

Re: Evolving Floorplans

#85

Post by CapitalistCartr »

I work in 3D drafting & design, and CNC programming. In my life I've seen woodwork go from almost always boxes, to heavily jellybean, organic shapes. Because we have the tools to do it, people want it. Any less looks dated.

Houses will go the same way as the tools become available. In the yacht business a new design took a room full of men a couple years to design and draw, so they were slow, serious business. Now it takes three guys at computers six months. So people expect it: a new design every year at the boat show. Go two years without and bad rumors circulate.

Re: Evolving Floorplans

#86

Post by saalweachter »

jethro_tell wrote: post #50
TeMPOraL wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about concrete 3D-printing? (I'm not even sure if it's real or feasible; I just remember a bunch of pop news articles with a video of a large CNC machine depositing concrete to construct a building.)

Concrete is manual 3D printing from 100+ years ago. =) I've seen a concrete 3d printer, but it doesn't look like it would be structural. i.e. not sure how you would print around full lengths of rebar?

There's a YouTube channel, "My Little Homestead" where a family builds various house-additions and structures out of stucco-covered dirt-filled sandbags.

Dunno how that sort of construction technique pans out long-term or large-scale but you could get the sort of floorplans the GA generated out of it.

Re: Evolving Floorplans

#87

Post by rzzzt »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #37
riebschlager wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> building costs beyond just material use Yep. The "optimized" floorplans would be an order of magnitude more expensive to build than the original. I mean, drywall alone would take a lot more time with all the cuts, mudding and sanding more joints. The thought of framing out these walls makes my head hurt.

What about concrete 3D-printing? (I'm not even sure if it's real or feasible; I just remember a bunch of pop news articles with a video of a large CNC machine depositing concrete to construct a building.)

Was this among them: https://youtu.be/DQ5Elbvvr1M

Re: Evolving Floorplans

#88

Post by theoh »

wjnqx wrote: post #75
burfog wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rebar makes earthquakes worse, as seen in California's freeway collapse. The rebar depends on the concrete to prevent corrosion, but that is only good for roughly 50 years. Rust causes expansion, which cases cracking. The outer concrete falls away, leaving rebar to get crushed under the load. The obvious fixes, like stainless steel rebar, have thermal expansion coefficients that don't match concrete, so instead you g…

Would you be able to provide links to modern structures built with the methods you're describing or research about them? Does this conservative design resemble something like Gaudi's Sagrada Familia, or is that the wrong way to think about it?

Here's one modern example: https://pagethink.com/v/project-detail/Wiss-Janney-Elstner-A...

It really means massiveness and stability, in order to have an acceptable margin of safety.

One aspect of the theory is the notion of a line of thrust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_thrust

Arch dams might be the only type of "contemporary" looking structure that is habitually made in this way out of unreinforced concrete.

Although Gaudi was interested in structural optimization (using catenary models), he is an outlier in terms of design. He didn't comprehensively consider seismic aspects, though apparently he didn't do too badly: https://blog.sagradafamilia.org/en/divulgation/seismic-activ...

Re: Evolving Floorplans

#89

Post by crwalker »

theoh wrote: post #68
jethro_tell wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What sort of structure would you use a concrete without a tensile support like rebar or steel of some kind? How would that stand up in an earthquake?

"Primitive" structures and other structures engineered to avoid tension in the concrete. Concrete doesn't have zero tensile strength. Apparently it's a few MPa, so a fifth or a tenth of the compressive strength. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/amp/concrete-properties-d_... The large dome of the (Roman) Pantheon is unreinforced concrete. Most compressive structures built before the modern period (arches, domes, butt…

The concrete in the Pantheon is exposed to max ~20 psi tensile stress, and the concrete can handle about ~200 psi tensile stress.

http://www.romanconcrete.com/docs/chapt01/chapt01.htm

Re: Evolving Floorplans

#90

Post by Semiapies »

riebschlager wrote: post #11
jmilloy wrote: post #2

These kinds of tools are mostly about the input constraints, heuristics, and weights. I'd love to see more about this with more practical constraints (rectilinear rooms and hallways, minimum area for cafetaria/gym, etc) and additional heuristics, such as window area in classrooms, number of hallways/intersections for ease-of-navigation, and building costs beyond just material use.

> building costs beyond just material use Yep. The "optimized" floorplans would be an order of magnitude more expensive to build than the original. I mean, drywall alone would take a lot more time with all the cuts, mudding and sanding more joints. The thought of framing out these walls makes my head hurt.

And even if you had a building process that made circular/n-gon-based rooms practical, furnishing and laying out those rooms would be awkward. See the problems people have furnishing dome houses.

I'd least envy the people trying to arrange shelving in the library...

Still, interesting. I'd be curious to see results as he adds more practical constrains.

Post reply on HN