4.7 Article

Automatic unit layout of masonry structure using memetic algorithm and building information modeling

期刊

AUTOMATION IN CONSTRUCTION
卷 130, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103858

关键词

Memetic algorithm; Masonry unit layout problem; Building information modeling

资金

  1. Scientific and Technological Innovation Foundation of Chongqing, China [cstc2020yszx-jscxX0001]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [U20A20312, 61876025]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, a 2step memetic algorithm is proposed for automatic masonry unit layout, and the layout results are automatically generated through the tool developed by the Revit API. Validation experiments are conducted on different sets of masonry structures and a building case, confirming the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed approach.
Masonry materials has been widely used in building construction. During the design of a masonry structure, engineers need to manually arrange the position of each masonry unit to reduce the waste of masonry units on construction site. This manual approach is inefficient and error-prone. With the development of computer-aided design, attention has been paid to the use of a computer-aided method to improve the efficiency of masonry design. However, the existing work has focused on the visual representation of masonry structures, while lacking the study on automatic masonry unit layout. Therefore, in this paper, inspired by the 0-1 knapsack problem, a 2step memetic algorithm is proposed first for the automatic masonry unit layout considering the Chinese code for construction of masonry structures engineering (GB 50924-2014) and the feasibility of construction. The models for layout results are then automatically generated through the tool which developed by the Revit API. Validation experiments are conducted on five sets of masonry structures with the different lengths and a building case, which confirmed the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed approach.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据