Evolutionary Computation Tower

Emergence and Evolutionary Computation Evolutionary Computation Tower

Mohamed Owaze Ansari | Leili Ghaemi Design Group 05 | 2020-2021 Director | Dr. Michael Weinstock

| Studio Master | Elif Erdine Studio Tutor | Milad Showkatbakhsh

Emergent Technologies And Design / AA School Of Architecture

PRIMITIVE| BODY PLAN| BODY PARTS| GENE POOL| FITNESS OBJECTIVE

A

B

1a, 1b

2c, 3a,b,c

3a, 4

1a, 1b

2c, 3a,b,c

3a, 4

Genome Length:

Genome Length: (I) Maximum volume (II) Minimum surface area on specified surface (III) Minimum shadow

SEQUENCE I STRATEGY 1 :

GENERATION 0 - GENERATION 4

Breeding & Elitism Strategy:

CROSSOVER | MUTATION

Crossover Strategy:

F

C

E

D

D

B

C C

E

D

C

F

D

B

A

C

E

D

C

F

D

B

A

A

1 point crossover 2 offspring for all parents but 1 pair

Mutation Strategy:

F

C

E

D

Type: Duplication Probability: 50% Rate: 25%

D

B

C

A

＋ A

STRATEGY 1 :

GENERATION 0 - GENERATION 4

Generation 4

Generation 3

Generation 2

Generation 1

Generation 0

Generation 0:

Generation 1:

Generation 2:

Generation 3:

Generation 4:

2 Unaffected

3 Unaffected

3 Unaffected

6 Unaffected

6 Unaffected

Observations: •Genes B and E were eliminated from the phenotypes •Increased homogeneity among the appearances and genomes of phenotypes •High frequency of Gene D

(I) Maximum volume

•Repetition of genes are due to mutation strategy of duplication; the final gene in the genome of one of the offsprings of a pair parents is duplicated •Variance decreased in all fitness criteria as generations were produced •By Generation 4, phenotypes had very minimal variation

Changes to be made: •Crossover Strategy – 2 point crossover, to allow for more variation as majority of the phenotypes began with the same gene in their genome.

(II) Minimum shading

•Mutation Strategy – Insertion of the first gene in the genome of one of the parent phenotypes into the end of the genome of one of the offsprings.

•Elitism – Removed to eliminate repetition of the same genomes in every generation.

•Gene regulation – Gene A to include effects on body parts 4 & 5 •Gene change – Gene D values changed to 0.6 units (scale 2D)

(III) Minimum surface area

(I)

(II)

(III)

PRIMITIVE| BODY PLAN| BODY PARTS| GENE POOL| FITNESS OBJECTIVE

A

B

1a, 1b

2c, 3a,b,c

3a, 4

1a, 1b

2c, 3a,b,c

3a, 4

Genome Length:

Genome Length: (I) Maximum volume (II) Minimum surface area on specified surface (III) Minimum shadow

STRATEGY 2 :

GENERATION 5 - GENERATION 9

Breeding & Elitism Strategy:

CROSSOVER | MUTATION

Crossover Strategy:

F

C

E

D

D

B

C C

E

D

C

F

D

B

A

C

E

D

C

F

D

B

A

A

1 point crossover 2 offspring for all parents but 1 pair

Mutation Strategy:

F

C

E

D

Type: Duplication Probability: 50% Rate: 25%

D

B

C

A

＋ F

STRATEGY 2 :

GENERATION 5 - GENERATION 5

Generation 9

Generation 8

Generation 7

Generation 6

Generation 5

Generation 5:

Generation 6:

Generation 7:

Generation 8:

Generation 9:

3 Unaffected

3 Unaffected

2 Unaffected

5 Unaffected

2 Unaffected

Observations: •Variance was limited and not chronological among phenotypes •Ex. means increased and decreased in a non-uniform way between subsequent genes (decreasing from 5 to 6, increasing from 6 to 7) •While 6 increased in variance from 5, it decreased from 6-9 (I).

•While Gene D decreased in frequency, Gene C increased in frequency.

(I) Maximum volume

•Gene A was a more prevalent compared to its frequency in Generations 0-4. However, as it was applying to body parts 4 & 5, it had a significant effect on the heights of phenotypes.

•While Max Volume conflicted with Min Shadow, Min surface area went hand in hand with Min Shadow.

•This decreased variance in phenotypes and therefore generations •Linearity began appearing in the parallel coordinates graph. A few of the phenotypes had extreme changes. This represented the similarities that were occurring in the phenotypes.

(II) Minimum shading Changes to be made: •As two fitness criteria went hand in hand, they would be changed to all conflict to observe if further variance would be introduced.

•Potentially genes would have to be altered to reflect these new fitness criteria, to bring back the genes that disappeared.

•As Generations went on, they had minimal variation, with an increase in taller structures.

(III) Minimum surface area

(I)

(II)

(III)

STUDY | CONTEXT | ABSTRACTION

Marina Bay Sands combines more than 120,000 square meters (nearly 1.3 million square feet) of world-class convention and exhibition facilities; three 56-storey hotel towers containing more than 2600 rooms in total; a 1-hectare (2.5-acre) sky park capping the towers, which offers 360-degree views of the city and sea and outdoor amenities for the hotel including swimming pools, restaurants and gardens; an iconic ArtScience Museum on the promontory; two state-of-the-art theatres with 4000 seats; a casino; a wide array of shopping and dining outlets; and an outdoor event plaza along the promenade that can accommodate up to 10,000 people.

The project is more than the sum of its buildings, it is an entirely new urban sector of Singapore, a vital district that is connected with nature, interactive, of a human scale, and climatically sustainable. The seamlessness of indoor and outdoor public space is a hallmark of Marina Bay Sands and a major factor in its success.

General parameters of the design were: • EXPLORE (new living and lifestyle options) • EXCHANGE (new business ideas) • ENTERTAIN (rich cultural experiences) • 55 Stories of hotel • Garden on top of 1 hectare • 150 m (492 ft) infinity pool • Primary driving element of design was the need for a continuous atrium running along all three towers • Tapering of the building was then conceived • Function: Integrated resort – hotel, casino, arts/science museum, retail& restaurants, etc.

Floor Area: 929,000 m2

MARINA BY THE SANDS SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM

Sky Deck

Core

Atrium

v

FLOOR PLAN : 57TH FLOOR Atrium

FLOOR PLAN : 50TH FLOOR Towers

PRIMITIVE| BODY PLAN| BODY PARTS| GENE POOL Sky Deck

GENE A Size Of Atrium

GENE B No. Of Buildings/ Shape

Sky Lobby

PRIMITIVE

GENE C

GENE D

Converge at Sky Lobby

Diverge at Sky Deck

No. Of Buildings

Floor Plates Core

Atrum

GENE E Bridges Linking Isolated Cores

BODY PLAN

The Primitive is divided into number of buildings (3-10) based on site area remaining after Gene A acting upon the site plot. All body parts have individual degrees of of freedom from Genes B to F.

GENE F No. Of Floor Plates

SEQUENCE II TOWER MORPHOLOGY

FITNESS CRITERIA | FITNESS OBJECTIVE

F02:

F04:

Maximise Atrium/Site Shading

Minimum Visual Block

F05:

F03:

F01:

Maximise Wind Resistance

Maximise Circulation Space

Maximise Floor Area Ratio

The Fitness Criteria incorporate Environmental, Functioning of internal space and the influence of the building ro its surroundings.

F01: Maximum FAR F02: Maximum Atrium Shading F03: Minimum Circulation Area

INDIVIDUAL 0

INDIVIDUAL 1

INDIVIDUAL 2

INDIVIDUAL 3

F04: Maximum Visual Block F05: Minimum Wind Resistance

INDIVIDUAL 4

TYPE A

INDIVIDUAL 5

INDIVIDUAL 6

INDIVIDUAL 7

INDIVIDUAL 8

INDIVIDUAL 9

OBSERVATIONS Individual 9 represents a Type A cluster where it is optimising FO 1 and FO 2 greatly but it does so by interpreting encroachment of the Atrium to reach its solution.

Whereas, Individual 10 represents a Type B cluster wherein FO 2 and FO 3 interprets the geometry and the graph accurately. For Type C cluster, Individual 20 correctly interprets FO 3 and FO 4, whereas FO 5 should be optimized with relation to the geometry. Type D clusters interpret all of its FO’s accurately, eg. Individual 16.

GENERATION 10:

TYPE B

INDIVIDUAL 10

INDIVIDUAL 11

INDIVIDUAL 12

INDIVIDUAL 13

INDIVIDUAL 14

INDIVIDUAL 17

INDIVIDUAL 18

INDIVIDUAL 19

TYPE D

INDIVIDUAL 15

INDIVIDUAL 16

F01: Maximum FAR F02: Maximum Atrium Shading F03: Minimum Circulation Area

F04: Maximum Visual Block F05: Minimum Wind Resistance

TYPE C

INDIVIDUAL 20

INDIVIDUAL 21

INDIVIDUAL 22

INDIVIDUAL 23

INDIVIDUAL 24

INDIVIDUAL 25

INDIVIDUAL 26

INDIVIDUAL 27

INDIVIDUAL 28

INDIVIDUAL 29

OBSERVATIONS

F01

F02

F03

F04

The relative difference between FO 1 and FO 3 is maximum, wherein the two sharply contradict each other as seen in the Parallel Coordinate Plot Graph. A similar difference is observed between FO 3 and FO 5, FO 1 and FO 2 , and FO4 and FO 5; thereby completely contradicting each other. This leads Type A and Type C clusters in Generation 10 where the phenotypes converge by comparing the relative difference between FO 1 and F0 5 or FO 2 and FO 4. The Parallel Coordinate Graph in its nascency is observed to be at the bottom of the graph.

INDIVIDUAL 30

INDIVIDUAL 31

INDIVIDUAL 32

INDIVIDUAL 33

INDIVIDUAL 34

INDIVIDUAL 35

INDIVIDUAL 36

INDIVIDUAL 37

INDIVIDUAL 38

INDIVIDUAL 39

F05

F01: Maximum FAR F02: Maximum Atrium Shading F03: Minimum Circulation Area

INDIVIDUAL 0

INDIVIDUAL 1

INDIVIDUAL 2

INDIVIDUAL 3

F04: Maximum Visual Block F05: Minimum Wind Resistance

INDIVIDUAL 4

TYPE A

INDIVIDUAL 5

INDIVIDUAL 6

INDIVIDUAL 7

INDIVIDUAL 8

INDIVIDUAL 9

OBSERVATIONS The relative position of the cluster Types A, C and D are in close proximity to the individuals previously seen in Generation 10. With the difference being the the interpretation of at least two FO being commonly seen in all individuals (Type B).

Individual 8 represents a Type A cluster where it is optimising FO 1 and FO 2; while for Type C cluster, Individual 13 and 20 correctly interprets FO 3 and FO 4, whereas FO 5 should be optimized with relation to the geometry.

GENERATION 30

TYPE C

INDIVIDUAL 10

INDIVIDUAL 11

INDIVIDUAL 12

INDIVIDUAL 13

INDIVIDUAL 14

INDIVIDUAL 15

INDIVIDUAL 16

INDIVIDUAL 17

INDIVIDUAL 18

INDIVIDUAL 19

F01: Maximum FAR F02: Maximum Atrium Shading F03: Minimum Circulation Area

TYPE C

F04: Maximum Visual Block F05: Minimum Wind Resistance

TYPE D

INDIVIDUAL 20

INDIVIDUAL 21

INDIVIDUAL 22

INDIVIDUAL 23

INDIVIDUAL 24

INDIVIDUAL 25

INDIVIDUAL 26

INDIVIDUAL 27

INDIVIDUAL 28

INDIVIDUAL 29

OBSERVATIONS

F01

F02

F03

F04

The relative difference between FO 1 and FO 3, FO 3 and FO 5, FO 1 and FO 2 , and FO4 in the Parallel Coordinate Plot Graph when compared to Generation 10 is relatively less and despite the sharp difference it is observed that in a few individuals are converging in the Diamond Chart Diagram. This leads a larger number of individuals encompassing Type C clusters where the phenotypes satisfy at least two FO . But the graph is shifting up implying that there is a common phenotype satisfying at least two FO and is looking for more solutions to satisfy all FO.

INDIVIDUAL 30

INDIVIDUAL 31

INDIVIDUAL 32

INDIVIDUAL 33

INDIVIDUAL 34

INDIVIDUAL 35

INDIVIDUAL 36

INDIVIDUAL 37

INDIVIDUAL 38

INDIVIDUAL 39

F05

F01: Maximum FAR F02: Maximum Atrium Shading F03: Minimum Circulation Area

F04: Maximum Visual Block F05: Minimum Wind Resistance

TYPE A

INDIVIDUAL 0

INDIVIDUAL 1

INDIVIDUAL 2

INDIVIDUAL 3

INDIVIDUAL 4

INDIVIDUAL 5

INDIVIDUAL 6

INDIVIDUAL 7

INDIVIDUAL 8

INDIVIDUAL 9

OBSERVATIONS

GENERATION 49 :

PARETO FRONT

Cluster Types A and D are most predominant in generation 49 where the relationship between the phenotypes and how accurately the diamond graph relates to the result.

Where the phenotype geometry is accurately presented with all FOs (Type D) or has one FO misinterpreted (Type A). The possible reason for this could be a parent geometry that is passing along the error or correction through the generations. As seen in Generation 49 when compared to the previous generations.

INDIVIDUAL 10

INDIVIDUAL 11

INDIVIDUAL 12

INDIVIDUAL 13

INDIVIDUAL 14

INDIVIDUAL 15

INDIVIDUAL 16

INDIVIDUAL 17

INDIVIDUAL 18

INDIVIDUAL 19

F01: Maximum FAR F02: Maximum Atrium Shading F03: Minimum Circulation Area

F04: Maximum Visual Block F05: Minimum Wind Resistance

INDIVIDUAL 20

INDIVIDUAL 21

INDIVIDUAL 22

INDIVIDUAL 23

INDIVIDUAL 24

INDIVIDUAL 25

INDIVIDUAL 26

INDIVIDUAL 27

INDIVIDUAL 28

INDIVIDUAL 29

OBSERVATIONS

F01

F02

F03

F04

When compared to the previous generations it is observed that in generation 49 the Parallel Coordinate Graph has the highest divergence in the solution space, implying that the solution space is still searching for an optimized solution satisfying all the FOs. The least amount of divergence is seen between FO1 and FO 2 in comparison to the other FOs in the Parallel Coordinate Graph. Probably if the solution is run for longer duration a more optimized solution for all all FOs can be found.

INDIVIDUAL 30

INDIVIDUAL 31

INDIVIDUAL 32

INDIVIDUAL 33

INDIVIDUAL 34

TYPE D

INDIVIDUAL 35

INDIVIDUAL 36

INDIVIDUAL 37

INDIVIDUAL 38

INDIVIDUAL 39

F05

CLUSTER ANALYSIS | STANDARD DEVIATION GRAPH ANALYSIS

GEN 49 | INDIVIDUAL 38

F02: Maximum Atrium Shading

F01: Maximum FAR

F03: Minimum Circulation Area

F04: Minimum Visual Block

GEN 30 | INDIVIDUAL 23

Decreasing Fitness

F05: Minimum Wind Resistance

F01

F02

F03

F04

F05

l o w

h i g h

GEN 10 | INDIVIDUAL 16

OBSERVATIONS

GEN 2 | INDIVIDUAL 20

Fitness Objective FO4 is the only Standard Deviation Graph shifting towards the left, while all the graphs are diverging, suggesting that the algorithm is still struggling to optimize. There is no convergence in the the Parallel Coordinate Graph as the fitness criterias strongly conflicting with each other, this leads to the solution requiring a longer simulation time. The Hierarchical Single Linkage graphs for generations 10, 30 and 49 show that the common phenotype is optimising the fitness objectives and all the phenotypes link to Gen 2 Individual 20.

CONCLUSIONS | CRITICAL REFLECTION SELECTION OF PHENOTYPE

GEN 10 | INDIVIDUAL 16

GEN 30 | INDIVIDUAL 28

GEN 30 | INDIVIDUAL 21

GEN 49 | INDIVIDUAL 3

GEN 49 | INDIVIDUAL 38

OBSERVATIONS The objective space shows the solutions converging towards FO 3 Minimum Circulation Area and FO 4 Minimum Visual Block. This can clearly be seen in the selected phenotypes that the towers are relatively less curvy requiring fewer number of cores and the link between the cores is done so by means of bridges.

With respect to the towers visually blocking the bay along its longer side, the towers scale inward or move away from each other to provide maximum visual porosity. If the iterations are run for longer duration, the solution could converging towards the origin.

CRITICAL REFLECTION The final morphological solution of the phenotype might not be the best possible solution architecturally, post analysis for structural stability and analysis for other environmental factors needs to be considered.

CASE STUDY | THE STEART COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Photo by WWT .ORG The aim of the project – which was designed and supervised by CH2M Hill - was to improve flood defences while also creating more than 400 hectares of valuable natural habitats on the Steart Peninsula, an exposed coastal area located on the north Somerset coast at Bridgwater Bay. As the tides begin to come in and out the artificial channel expected to erode and evolve towards a new stable form.

The channels extend from the main water boundary and extend towards the lagoons thereby recharging the water sources as the rise in water levels take place, thereby preventing the marshes from flooding and provide a steady supply of water for plant species to grow. This method of land management in extreme conditions can be applied to singapore which is one of the cities to be influenced by rising sea levels in a 100 year time period.

LAGOON

CHANNEL

SINGAPORE RISE IN SEA LEVEL

URBAN CONTEXT

Since 2011, the water catchment area has increased from half to two-thirds of Singapore’s land surface with the completion of the Marina, Punggol and Serangoon Reservoirs. This makes Singapore one of the few countries in the world to harvest urban stormwater on a large scale for potable consumption.

Our site is located in the Marina reservoir region, but despite its potential to solve the problem of flooding in this low lying region by means of underground canals, it will prove otherwise due to the expected rise in sea level in a time frame of 100 years.

Considering that the rise in sea level is in consideration of the 4℃ the shore line being the lowest region, will be encroached with an estimate between 80 to 200 m by 2120. Despite the loss of the shore line the real issue would be the effect on the existing water channels which will overflow as neither the underground reservoir system nor the sea will be able to absorb any the extra influx of water. The possible solution to this scenario would be to create further smaller channels within the existing ones, while providing green areas around the channels to regulate another system of control.

STUDY | CONTEXT | ABSTRACTION

SEQUENCE III BODY PARTS

BEST RANKED SOLUTIONS

F01: Maximum Connectivity F02: Maximum Green Area

F03: Maximum Site Area F04: Minimum Visual Block F01: Maximum Connectivity

GEN 30 | INDIVIDUAL 4

F02: Maximum Green Area

GEN 45 | INDIVIDUAL 2

WORST RANKED SOLUTIONS

OBJECTIVE BASED COMPARISON F01: Maximum Connectivity

GEN 8 | INDIVIDUAL 5

F02: Maximum Green Area

GEN 49 | INDIVIDUAL 3

BEST RANKED SOLUTIONS

F01: Maximum Connectivity F02: Maximum Green Area

F03: Maximum Site Area F04: Minimum Visual Block F03: Maximum Site Area

GEN 36 | INDIVIDUAL 2

F04: Minimum Visual Block

GEN 28 | INDIVIDUAL 0

WORST RANKED SOLUTIONS

OBJECTIVE BASED COMPARISON F03: Maximum Site Area

GEN 8 | INDIVIDUAL 8

F04: Minimum Visual Block

GEN 18 | INDIVIDUAL 1

K MEANS CLUSTERS

CLUSTER AVERAGE | REPRESENTATIVE | GEN 23 | INDIVIDUAL 6 Cluster 1 : 25 links

CLUSTER AVERAGE | REPRESENTATIVE | GEN 26 | INDIVIDUAL 1 Cluster 2 : 10 links

CLUSTER AVERAGE | REPRESENTATIVE | GEN 1 | INDIVIDUAL 5 Cluster 3 : 18 links

F01

Cluster 1 Cluster 4

Cluster 2 Cluster 5

F01: Maximum Connectivity F02: Maximum Green Area

F02

Cluster 3 Cluster 6

F03: Maximum Site Area F04: Minimum Visual Block

CLUSTER AVERAGE | REPRESENTATIVE | GEN 21 | INDIVIDUAL 7 Cluster 4 : 26 links

CLUSTER AVERAGE | REPRESENTATIVE | GEN 40 | INDIVIDUAL 4 Cluster 5 : 20 links

CLUSTER AVERAGE | REPRESENTATIVE | GEN 38 | INDIVIDUAL 0 Cluster 6 : 5 links

F03

F04

Experiment 2

BEST RANKED SOLUTIONS

F01: Maximum Self Shading F02: Maximum Built Space F03: Maximum Connectivity

F04: Maximum Green Area F05: Maximum SIte Area F06: Minimum Visual Block F01: Maximum Self Shading

GEN 34 | INDIVIDUAL 4

F02: Maximum Built Space

GEN 27 | INDIVIDUAL 3

WORST RANKED SOLUTIONS

OBJECTIVE BASED COMPARISON F01: Maximum Self Shading

GEN 18 | INDIVIDUAL 4

F02: Maximum Built Space

GEN 6 | INDIVIDUAL 0

BEST RANKED SOLUTIONS

F01: Maximum Self Shading F02: Maximum Built Space F03: Maximum Connectivity

F04: Maximum Green Area F05: Maximum SIte Area F06: Minimum Visual Block F03: Maximum Connectivity

GEN 16 | INDIVIDUAL 3

F04: Maximum Green Area

GEN 43 | INDIVIDUAL 3

WORST RANKED SOLUTIONS

OBJECTIVE BASED COMPARISON F03: Maximum Connectivity

GEN 11 | INDIVIDUAL 5

F04: Maximum Green Area

GEN 45 | INDIVIDUAL 7

BEST RANKED SOLUTIONS

F01: Maximum Self Shading F02: Maximum Built Space F03: Maximum Connectivity

F04: Maximum Green Area F05: Maximum SIte Area F06: Minimum Visual Block F05: Maximum Site Area

GEN 33 | INDIVIDUAL 3

F06: Minimum Visual Block

GEN 49 | INDIVIDUAL 3

WORST RANKED SOLUTIONS

OBJECTIVE BASED COMPARISON F05: Maximum Site Area

GEN 7 | INDIVIDUAL 4

F06: Minimum Visual Block

GEN 37 | INDIVIDUAL 0

K MEANS CLUSTERS

CLUSTER AVERAGE | REPRESENTATIVE | GEN 23 | INDIVIDUAL 6 Cluster 1 : 25 links

CLUSTER AVERAGE | REPRESENTATIVE | GEN 26 | INDIVIDUAL 1 Cluster 2 : 10 links

CLUSTER AVERAGE | REPRESENTATIVE | GEN 1 | INDIVIDUAL 5 Cluster 3 : 18 links

F01

Cluster 1 Cluster 4

Cluster 2 Cluster 5

F01: Maximum Connectivity F02: Maximum Green Area

F02

Cluster 3 Cluster 6

F03: Maximum Site Area F04: Minimum Visual Block

CLUSTER AVERAGE | REPRESENTATIVE | GEN 21 | INDIVIDUAL 7 Cluster 4 : 26 links

CLUSTER AVERAGE | REPRESENTATIVE | GEN 40 | INDIVIDUAL 4 Cluster 5 : 20 links

CLUSTER AVERAGE | REPRESENTATIVE | GEN 38 | INDIVIDUAL 0 Cluster 6 : 5 links

F03

F04