Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 310320

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a u t c o n

An integrated system for providing mass customized housing

D. Benros, J.P. Duarte
Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper describes an integrated system for enabling the mass customization of housing. The goal is to
Accepted 15 September 2008 lower the costs through recourse to large scale, serial production while satisfying the unique requirements of
each individual household to guarantee customer satisfaction. The integrated system includes a design
Keywords: system that encodes the rules for generating customized designs and a prefab building system that makes it
Customized housing possible to construct from such designs. Integration is achieved through a computer tool that enables the
Design system
easy exploration and visualization of solutions, and automatically generates the information required for
Building system
Automated production
production.
2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction are the Torten housing development by Walter Gropius, in Germany,

This work represents an alternative to the conventional methodol-
ogy followed by designers of mass housing. When a designer has to
design a large housing estate, the conventional solution is to conceive
a limited number of house types and then to repeat them, based on
market analysis. There are two reasons for this. First, the designer
cannot design each dwelling individually due to the amount of
information that s/he would have to process. Second, traditional
manufacturing techniques require repetition to lower the costs. As a
result houses are not tailored to their users. The aim of this work is to
overcome this limitation by relying on cutting-edge design, construc-
tion, and information technology. Another aim is to accelerate the
housing design and building processes while improving the quality of
the nal solution, by customizing it to its nal users, thereby avoiding
upgrading costs.
The concept of mass production was developed by Henry Ford for
the production of the Ford model T in the 1910s [1]. Mass production,
also called serial production, was based on the standardization of
components and on the systematization of processes. These were
organized in such a way that a car was gradually put together along a
production line by groups of factory workers who performed the same
operations over and over again. Systematic repetition of components
and processes permitted lower costs through economies of scale. The
success of Henry Ford's idea was such that the automobile became
widely accessible and mass production was adopted by other
industries.
From the 1920s on, architects tried to apply the paradigm to
architecture to solve housing problems. Two well-known examples
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jduarte@fa.utl.pt (J.P. Duarte).
and Le Corbusier's Pessac, both designed around 1926. In both cases
there was a desire to conceive a schema to generate affordable
housing using industrialization as a means to lower the costs [2]. The
strategy was to design a few model houses that were prefabricated
and then repeated on a large scale. Le Corbusier also was concerned
with variety, but this was more focused on the urban level.
Nevertheless, if we compare the various interiors after transforma-
tion by the inhabitants with Le Corbusier's original project, it becomes
immediately apparent that the concept lends itself to subsequent
modication [3]. These and other approaches to the mass production
of houses in the period between the two world wars were mainly
experimental, as the few houses built enjoyed only limited success.
However, after the Second World War, mass production would be
extensively used in the reconstruction of cities destroyed by air raids.
In eastern Europe, centralized forms of government and egalitarian
societies facilitated the introduction and the spread of this production
process. Eastern European prefabricated systems were closed systems,
that is, the same factory produced all the required building
components, and there was no inter-changeability among compo-
nents from different systems. In western Europe, once the housing
shortage caused by the war was overcome, this kind of production
process became unacceptable for a society increasingly concerned
with individual freedom and choice. It was therefore gradually
abandoned.
The United States also needed to build housing on a large scale
after the war. The cities had not been destroyed, but the return of
American soldiers and the consequent wave of marriages, triggered an
increased need for housing. The specics of American society and their
impact on market forces nevertheless led to the development of a
different paradigm for the serial production of houses, called kit-of-
parts. In Europe, the adoption of closed systems prevented inter-

0926-5805/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2008.09.006
 D. Benros, J.P. Duarte / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 310320
changeability, but in the US, the desire of the builders to avoid
becoming dependent on any given supplier made them gradually
evolve towards open systems [4]. Such systems demanded consider-
able coordination to integrate components from different suppliers.
Production costs were reduced because as each company focused on
the production of a single component, it was able to optimize the
process. However, communication difculties were a barrier to
complete integration and jeopardized cost control.
In the 1960s, excessive monotony and the impersonality of mass
produced housing led to the quest for new design and production
methods that would allow user participation and greater urban
diversity. One of the most articulate and inuential examples in this
regard was the Theory of Supports developed by John Habraken [5], in
The Netherlands within the SAR1 group. The theory distinguished
between support and inll. The support was the rigid part of the
building that households agreed not to change. It included the
structure and the infrastructure. The inll was the exible part that
could be modied afterwards. Design followed a precise method that
included a tartan grid and the denition of three functional zones
parallel to the facades: two at the ends, where the main rooms were
located, and one in the middle for service areas. Each of these was
bordered by secondary zones that could be used for circulation,
verandas, or additional area. The method provided a set of rules that
could be used in the design of various solutions, thereby allowing a
certain degree of customization.
In the 1970s, the concern with user participation and housing
customization found favourable ground in Portugal. To cope with an
increasing housing shortage the government launched a program
named SAAL,2 which foresaw that teams of architects and engineers
would work with households in the design and construction of their
houses. So, when lvaro Siza was commissioned to design a large
estate in vora in 1977, he interpreted local house types to devise a
schema based on an intuitive set of rules that permitted the design of
expandable house types, according to user needs [6]. The result was a
neighbourhood of diverse houses that has visual coherence, even after
additions and alterations have been made to houses over the years.
Meanwhile, Henry Ford's mass production paradigm became
gradually outdated in a society obsessed with individual consumer-
ism. The 1970s saw a new paradigm emerge in the automotive
industry with Toyota, the so-called lean production [7]. Lean
production aims at reducing production time and cost by avoiding
the waste that exists in serial production. One way of achieving this is
by using just-in-time (JIT) production, which decreases the need for
storage spaces as parts are produced only when an order has been
placed. This is accomplished with information systems that link the
client directly to the factory. JIT production enables higher levels of
customization as customer satisfaction is no longer dependent on
existing stocks. Another aspect of lean production is avoidance of the
assembly line. In lean production, small teams of workers gather
around the object and perform all the required operations. Performing
varied, instead of repetitive, task, fosters motivation and productivity.
The use of lean production led to Toyota becoming the world's main
car manufacturer.
With the development of lean production, another paradigm has
slowly emerged. This paradigm was anticipated by Alvin Tofer in his
1970 book Future's shock [8] and further detailed in The third
wave, published in 1980 [9]. This new paradigm was called mass
customization by Stanley Davis in his 1987 book Future perfect, [10]
but the methods for achieving mass customization were only
systematized by Joseph Pine in 1993 [11].
1
SAR Stichting Architecten Reserch in Dutch, meaning Architects Foundation
Research in English.
2
SAAL Servio Ambulatrio de Apoio Local in Portuguese, meaning Local Support
Ambulatory Service in English.
311
Unlike other industries, which have emulated the automotive
industry by gradually adopting lean production and moving towards
mass customization, the building industry has been slow in adopting
the new paradigm. But efforts have nevertheless been made. The work
described herein is the latest step in research aimed at achieving the
mass customization of housing. This research has proposed a model
for the mass production of houses that encompasses three systems: a
design system, a building system, and a computer system. The current
step describes an implementation of that model.
Section 2 provides a brief account of the research and the specic
context in which the current research step evolved. Section 3 outlines
the methodology used. Sections 4 and 5 describe the design system
and the building system, respectively. Section 6 describes the
structure and the output of the computer system. Finally, Section 7
discusses the results, presents the conclusions and outlines topics for
future research.
2. Precedents
In a paper called Design Machines, George Stiny and Lionel
March [12] proposed a theoretical model for the automated produc-
tion of artefacts. The model foresaw the automation of both design
and fabrication. This model was implemented by Duarte and
Simondetti [13] and then further rened by Wang and Duarte [14]
who developed a computer program that permitted the generation of
3-dimensional abstract objects using shape grammars [15,16] and the
fabrication of the corresponding physical models using rapid
prototyping.
In the meantime, Duarte [17,18] proposed a general model for the
mass customization of housing that foresaw the integration of design
and production systems using computers. The key idea underlying the
model was that the design and construction systems codied a house
type. The underlying notion of type was the one provided by Habraken
[19] who dened type as the synthesis of three systems: a spatial and
functional system, a structural and construction system, and a stylistic
system. These systems reect a set of social values and technological
know-how that constrain the prevalent ways of living, building and
embellishing the dwelling in a given culture.
Later on, Duarte [20,21] proposed a detailed model for the
implementation of the design system into a computer program that
would generate housing designs in a given language that matched
given criteria. This model used description grammars [22] and shape
grammars as the technical devices for encoding the rules of the design
system. The model was illustrated with an implementation developed
for the houses designed by Alvaro Siza at Malagueira, mentioned
above. However, the link between design and fabrication foreseen in
the general model had yet to be implemented. The goal of the research
described in this paper was to establish such a link. In the effort to do
this, shape grammars were eventually replaced by parametric design
as the means for encoding the rule system, because it facilitates
computer implementation, as will be discussed in the concluding
section. A shorter, less detailed version of this paper was presented at
CAAD Futures 07 [23].
The economic potential, the opportunity for solving certain social
problems and the technical challenge involved, mean that mass
customization has stimulated additional interest in architecture,
engineering, and construction in general, and in design computation,
in particular, and has emerged as a mainstream research topic in
recent years. For other approaches to the mass customization of
housing see Sass and Oxman [24], Sass and Botha [25], Sass [26],
Noguchi [27,28], and Noguchi and Hrnandez [29].
3. Problem and methodology
The motivation for the research came through Ove Arup in London.
Arup was concerned with solving the problem of the British rm
312 D. Benros, J.P. Duarte / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 310320
Kingspan, which produced a sophisticated building system based on
metal components. The richness of the system allowed construction of
a variety of buildings, but its inherent complexity caused several
difculties. The huge number of different components made it difcult
to grasp the system and tedious and time-consuming to develop the
construction drawings. This prevented architects using it in practice,
thereby diminishing its market potential. The solution was to develop
a housing system based on Kingspan's building system that permitted
mass production of customized housing, and so encouraging archi-
tects to adopt it in an innovative business model.
Due to time constraints, however, it was not feasible to develop a
new design system. Therefore, the solution was to look for an existing
system that fullled the intended goals the generation of a range of
dwellings and was compatible with the Kingspan building system,
thereby making it possible to demonstrate the proposed business
model to the client. This system was the ABC system conceived by the
Spanish architect Manuel Gausa, the leader of Actar, a publishing
house dedicated to the publication of design and conceptual work
with innovative approaches to architecture.
Research involved three stages: rst, the inference of the design
and building rule systems; second, the encoding of this system into a
computer program; and third, the assessment of the program.
The rst work stage combined the selection, study, and adjustment
of the design system to the Kingspan building system. The design
system was adapted from the ABC design system conceived by Manuel
Gausa, The system takes its name from the acronym of the functional
units used in the design of dwellings: closet, bathroom, and kitchen
(Armario, Bao and Cocina in Spanish). It is the placement of these
units within a column-free oor area according to a predened set of
rules that permits the generation of different layouts.
The Kingspan system is a prefabricated building system that has
two main features, a cold-formed steel structure and an envelope
constructed with standard nishing elements. It is a complete system
that can become too complex, hence the difculties penetrating the
architectural market. Nevertheless, it is a versatile building schema
with high dimensional tolerances. It can be adapted to different
geometries and its modular characteristics also permit the use of other
standard nishing materials and envelope solutions. There are some
constraints on the number of oors and maximum span. For instance,
the maximum number of oors is 6, and the pillar and beam grid
cannot exceed 16 4.5 3 m (length width height).
These constraints are not as strict as those of the design system and
so combining the two systems presented no particular difculties. Part
of the task here was to enlarge the scope of design solutions to take
full advantage of the building system and increase the potential for
generating customized houses. As a result, the lower and upper limits
of oor area, number of bedrooms, and number of oors were
stretched. Gausa's original schema foresaw apartments with between
one and three bedrooms and buildings with four oors. After the
alterations, the size of the dwellings ranged from studios to four-
bedroom apartments, with areas varying from 50 m2 to 150 m2, and
the height of the building varied from two to six oors.
The rules of both the design and the construction systems were
identied and systematized, and then encoded into the computer
program. The computer tool was created to run in AutoCAD 2006, a
CAD application commonly used by designers worldwide. The script
was written in AutoLISP, a dialect of LISP programming language
tailored to Autocad. The program was developed in a modular fashion
to facilitate coding and debugging. Each module contains a different
function that runs separately or together with the rest of the program.
The program operates in three stages. The rst is targeted at the
development of the 3D model of the dwelling and the building; the
second stage aims to create two-dimensional representations; and the
third stage consists of counting and listing all the construction
elements required for erecting the building. The program's structure
and operation is explained in Section 5.
4. Design system
The design system used as a basis for this work was developed as a
design concept for an entry to a mass housing competition in Ceuta in
1994. It was rst published by Actar in a collection of different
European housing solutions called New alternatives, new systems.
[30]. The proposal consisted of a methodology for designing mass
housing for social purposes or to be affordable based on Habraken's
theory of supports. The ABC design system was named after the
Spanish words' initials Armario, Bao, and Cocina as mentioned above,
which suggests part of the generic architectural concept [31].
The concept started as an urban planning proposal in which long
rows of buildings divided the site into alternate areas for private use
and public circulation (Fig. 1). The ground level was detached from the
ground and the few points of connection included vertical accesses,
structure, and facilities. The three upper oors were destined for
housing. The oors were organized in an almost conventional manner.
On each building oor the housing was distributed to the left and right
of the main circulation core that did not anticipate the innovative
design of each dwelling. This emerged from the initial division of the
space bounded by the peripheral wall, free of any supporting
structure, into four functional zones. Inside the independent house-
holds the larger outer zones were adjacent to the opposite facades,
thereby enjoying the benet of direct day-lighting, ventilation, and
views. The smaller inner zones were connected to the vertical access
and to the distribution hall. These zones hosted preferential functional
spaces. The outer zones were primarily destined for living spaces such
as living rooms, dining rooms, ofces, and bedrooms. The inner zones
were particularly suitable for circulation, storage, or service areas such
as entrance halls, closets, bathrooms, and kitchens.
The space bounded by the peripheral wall of the dwellings was free
of any supporting elements, as the structure was limited to this wall
and to the circulation core. The most remarkable feature of the system
is spatial division. The spaces and rooms connect to each other,
thereby remaining uid and somewhat open. The transition or
delimitation between adjacent spaces avoids any conventional
method such as doors, dividers, or partitions. Instead, it uses the
concept of functional modules. These are of three kinds: closet,
kitchen and bathroom. The idea is to concentrate the functions
required for particular service spaces in prefabricated elements. These
elements can be customized in size and in the arrangement of the
appliances they contain. The placement of these modules will
ultimately dene and delimit rooms (Fig. 2). They are perpendicular
to the facades and to the primary division of zones. The space around
them remains owing and open, since they were conceived as hard
elements in a surrounding uid space. [30] They can be seen
simultaneously as walls, xed furniture, partitions, or as Gausa puts it,
equipped walls [30].
Fig. 1. Urban design plan of the ABC system proposal submitted to the Ceuta
competition in 1994.
 D. Benros, J.P. Duarte / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 310320 313

Fig. 2. Sample of dwellings generated according to the ABC design system; the layouts are dened by the placement of three functional units: closet, bathroom, and kitchen (Armrio,
Bao, and Cocina in Spanish).

The Actar team did not submit a conventional design to the
competition. However, it is not completely accurate to say that they
presented a design system since they did not dene an explicit specic
set of rules. Instead, they presented a diagram showing possible
variations of the layout and facade (Fig. 3). Almost resembling a
musical score, this diagram showed how the variations could be
obtained by combining functional modules within housing units and
within the building. But the diagram did explicitly show the
generative principles behind the various designs. This meant that
considerable effort was needed to obtain the set of rules and
organizing them into a coherent design system that could be coded
into a computer program. Some of the rules could be immediately
extracted from the design, whereas others required a deeper
geometrical analysis. At the end, three different classes of rules
could be identied, related to spatial proportioning, adjacency, and
spatial connement.
The basic feature of spatial proportioning is the use of a 0.80 m
modular measurement. This key measurement was established from
the minimum door width and then transposed to other spatial
elements, including the standard perimeter of the dwellings. To
increase the range of design solutions, other dwelling sizes also were
considered, but these were always multiples of the module. Accord-
ingly, each of the four functional zones can be subdivided into a
modular matrix, maintaining, however, a hierarchy where living
spaces are larger and adjacent to fenestrations and service spaces are
smaller and central. Spatial adjacency rules derive from the placement
of functional units within these zones, which determines the
boundaries and dimensions of spaces. Fig. 4 summarizes possible
placements of functional units. It shows that units can be placed in
three different positions in each functional zone: on the left, on the
right, or in the middle. A fourth alternative is to have no unit, thereby
leaving the zone empty. Since functional units serve as boundaries and
determine spatial dimensioning, they also use modular measure-
ments that are multiples of 0.80 m.
Gausa's original design concept envisaged freely combining adjacent
spaces so as to maintain spatial uidity. To help the user to design
dwellings, the computer program was structured so that the user was
guided sequentially from zone to zone, starting in Zone 1 and ending in
Zone 4. Thus, the sleeping zone is the rst to be designed and detailed
and it can include functional units such as bathrooms (ensuite or not)
and closets (simple or walk-in). The next zone corresponds to the main
access area and it can include similar functional units, as well as
distribution spaces. Zones 3 and 4 are the only ones that can host
kitchens, and therefore the social area of the dwelling, as well as
bathrooms. These rules provide 1470 different basic apartment
solutions, calculated as follows: 735 (=7 5 3 7) solutions with the

Fig. 3. Compositional grid submitted to the Ceuta competition to illustrate possible combinations of functional units for dwelling layouts; the top row shows layouts in plane and the
one below shows the corresponding elevation.
314 D. Benros, J.P. Duarte / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 310320

Fig. 4. Matrix illustrating several possibilities for placing functional units according to the spatial proportioning and adjacency rules. Legend: A closet, B bathroom, C
kitchen, open-space.

kitchen in Zone 3, and another 735 solutions (=7 5 7 3) with the
kitchen in Zone 4, thereby avoiding solutions with two kitchens and
solutions with no kitchen at all. This then yields 540,225 (=735 735)
different oor solutions with two apartments per oor and, nally,
540,225 power 6 different building solutions, considering that the
possible number of oors is 6. The total number of solutions is even
larger, however, if one considers rules for conning spaces.
Although Gausa intended spaces to remain open and uid, some
needed to be conned for reasons of privacy, comfort or hygiene, such
as kitchens and bathrooms. For this reason, some spaces were
delimited by walls or partitions and connected by conventional
doors, in our version of the system. The spatial connement rules are
summarized in the diagram in Fig. 5. The diagram illustrates how
walls and doors are positioned to conne different rooms. In the
diagram functional units are represented by vertical rectangles.
The crossover functional units represent any kind of service, while the
bathroom is clearly represented. Secluded kitchens can be free-standing,
wall-free elements, but bathrooms are always closed, even when services
are adjacent to each other (i.e. kitchen and bathroom). In this case, a
partition separates the two spaces. Partitions are automatically placed by
the computer tool after the spaces are dened by the user.
The design of the facade is a reection of the layout of inner spaces.
This means that the placement of the functional units predetermines the
placement of opaque facade panels, and a colour code associated with
the unit type is used for the panel. The remaining facade panels consist of
transparent glass windows to provide natural lighting and ventilation.

Fig. 5. Matrix showing several possibilities for creating spaces by placing partitions and doors according to the spatial connement rules.
 D. Benros, J.P. Duarte / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 310320 315

5. Building system

The building system was developed and patented by the British

rm Kingspan. It is a light-weight system that incorporates structural,
framing, and lining systems.
The structural system is composed of galvanized steel elements
that form an orthogonal, pillar and beam supporting frame. These
elements are manufactured by cold-forming or simply by hot rollers
and made into linear elements with diverse standard sections. They
form a three-dimensional modular grid with maximum spans of
4.5 m 16.0 m 3.5 m for the width, length, and height, respectively, as
shown in Fig. 6. The structural system can support up to six storeys, but
structural reinforcement is recommended for more than three storeys.
The framing system reinforces the structural system and provides
the structure for slabs and walls. It is formed by cold-rolled galvanized
studs with a C-shaped cross-section that are placed no more than
0.80 m apart. In walls, they are complemented by frames around doors
and windows. Slabs are also designed as light elements composed
once more by a framing system of small sized C-shaped elements
spaced at even intervals. Corrugated steel sheets are placed on top of
these elements. This group of elements is then consolidated by a layer
of light concrete, poured on site, which will stabilize and atten the
oor surface for the application of the oor nish.
The structural and the framing systems were both designed to
incorporate various infrastructural elements, such as ducts and pipes
used for gas, electricity, and water supply or sewage drainage. This
feature permits exible design and assembly of elements on site.
The lining system depends on the choices of the designer and the
specics of a particular design. It was designed to adapt to various
layouts and to include most of the standard nishing products available
on the market, including those by other manufacturers. This means that
it is an open system that permits inter-changeability of standard
components. For this particular project coloured glass-bre reinforced
concrete panels and aluminium window frames were chosen for the
facade, and prefabricated concrete panels for the side walls. The interior
walls and ceilings are nished with plasterboard, and the oor is levelled
with a layer of light concrete, nished with wooden boards in living and
circulation spaces, and with tiles in wet spaces.
In brief, the features of the building system made it suitable for
integration with the design system, without requiring any alterations.
In addition, it provided an affordable way of materializing the design.
Fig. 7. Structure and ow diagram of the computer program.

Fig. 6. Structural and framing system from the Kingspan building system: typical prefabricated grid with maximum dimensions (left), and details of the connections (right).
316 D. Benros, J.P. Duarte / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 310320
6. Computer system
The design and the construction systems are integrated using a
computer program to assist the designer in the conception of
dwellings compliant with the design rules and in the production of
the corresponding construction documents. Some of the major
shortcomings of previous design systems stemmed from difculties
in applying their rule sets accurately and efciently, because they
were often too large and complicated. This aw was overcome in the
current case by incorporating design rules into the computer program
that deal with spatial proportions, functionality, salubriousness,
structural stability, and other rules covered by building codes. This
frees the designer from the burden of having to constantly watch out
for such rules, thereby allowing him or her to concentrate on
satisfying more specic client requirements. This program helps the
designer to generate the design brief and develop the 3D model of the
corresponding solution. It ultimately yields technical drawings and a
detailed list of parts required for construction. The structure of this
computer program and its outputs are described below.
The program encodes the rules of both the design and the building
systems using a parametric design approach for knowledge repre-
sentation. This means that a set of variables and mathematical
equations is used to represent shapes and spatial relations. It also
encodes building regulations and know-how principles to avoid
awkward situations. When the design brief has been settled, values
are assigned to the variables, either directly or indirectly, thus
determining the shape and dimensions of architectural and construc-
tion elements, as well as the overall conguration. As already
mentioned in Section 3, the program was encoded in Autolisp, the
scripting language of Autocad, using the Visual Lisp editor. This
platform was chosen to implement the design system because of the
exibility of the design language, the simplicity of the editor, and the
widespread use of Autocad.
The structure and diagram ow of the computer program, shown
in Fig. 7, mirrors the spatial structure of the building. It has several
oors, each comprising two dwellings (left and right), each with
several functional units (one kitchen unit and one or more bathroom
or closet units), and it encompasses different functions. The main one,
called ABC, is responsible for activating the program and initiating the
Fig. 8. A 3D model of the evolving design is displayed in real time to facilitate assessment and decision-making.
Create, Modify and Leave cycle. The Create function generates a
candidate building design. First it denes the design brief by enquiring
about general building features such as location, number of oors, and
oor height. Then it activates the function Createoor, which will run
repeatedly until the specied number of oors is achieved. This
function is responsible for the design of common spaces, including
stairs, lifts, and circulation, as well as for the design of dwellings, from
the left to the right, and from the ground to the top oor. For each
dwelling, the user has to specify the number of bedrooms, which is
then used to display the corresponding area range, for user selection.
Inside each dwelling, the interior layout and spatial distribution will
be dened sequentially from Zone 1 to Zone 4.
Design at this stage is assisted by the functions LayoutN and
DesignspaceN (N standing for the specic zone number). The former is
responsible for the placement of the perimeter wall of each individual
dwelling, and the latter for the design of each zone. DesignspaceN
depends directly on the functions Kitchenunit, WCunit, and Closetu-
nit, which generate one of the three typologies of functional units to
equip each dwelling with the basic services, namely, kitchen, bath-
room, and closet. It prompts the user to select functional units and to
specify their exact location within the zone. In doing so, it takes into
account the units that are appropriate to the zone and adjacency rules,
so that it only presents feasible solutions for user selection. Moreover,
it reminds the user of the need to include basic functions, such as
kitchens and bathrooms, in the right size and number. If the user does
not satisfy such a need, it will suggest a placement, to comply with
regulations and guarantee minimum dwelling quality. Once the
dwelling can no longer accommodate more functional units and
rooms, the computer displays a popup message concluding the design
of that dwelling. Then it completes the design by assessing the
resulting spatial distribution and placing appropriate boundary
elements between spaces doors, sliding walls, or partitions. Once
the dwelling is completed, the function Designrightap is used to
design the apartment on the right hand side of the oor. This function
will be responsible for retrieving the choices made in the design of the
apartment on the left-hand side before recalling the design and layout
functions just described to design the new apartment. Variables such
as area and number of bedrooms, or choices related to layout,
perimeter wall and spatial distribution will constrain the design of this
 D. Benros, J.P. Duarte / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 310320 317

Fig. 9. Output of the computer program: 2D drawings, including plans (top), and sections and elevations (bottom).

apartment, therefore retrieving this information is crucial. In the
design of the right hand apartment, messages are displayed at each
step in the computation to inform the user about the available options.
Once the oor is completed, the KStructure function is used to
dene and dimension the building system to t the generated design.
This function will call sub-functions like I-beam, C-stud, and other
sub-functions that parametrically model building elements according
to their specications and are used to dimension and insert them in
the right position. A 3D structural grid based on the Kingspan building
system is generated ready-adjusted to the elements already designed.

Fig. 10. Output of the computer program: bill of construction elements, used for budgeting and manufacturing purposes.
318 D. Benros, J.P. Duarte / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 310320
Fig. 11. Output of the computer program: a 3D model that can be used for producing rendered images (above) and physical models using rapid prototyping.
Structural elements are placed abutting existing perimeter walls and
partitions to keep the space uid and to clear circulation areas of
obstacles.
Similarly, the function Facade is used to clad the facade according
to the inner placement of functional units. This means that opaque
panels with the same colour used in functional units are placed on the
facade aligned with such units. Facade is also used for designing and
modelling window frames, glass panels, and structural studs by means
of sub-functions such as C-stud, Window and Glass. These elements,
modelled with standard dimensions according to the matrix module,
are assembled with a secondary structure of transoms supported on
the main structure. The process is then repeated for each oor until
the specied number of oors is reached. The generation of the 3D
model ends with the placement of the roof on the top oor by the
function Roof and the display of a message informing the user that the
design has been completed.
The design process can be monitored by the designer and client in
real time since the three-dimensional model of the design is created as
the decision-making process evolves (Fig. 8). This facilitates the
modication of undesired solutions or the comparison of different
ones, which are enabled by activating the Modify function or the
Create function, respectively. Once the user and the client are satised
with the design, they can exit the program by activating the Leave
function. Previously saved solutions can be later retrieved and
modied as well.
There are three different outputs of the computer program: the
three-dimensional model just mentioned, but also bi-dimensional
drawings, (Fig. 9) and bills of quantities (Fig. 10). The main purpose of
the three-dimensional model is to facilitate visualization and assess-
ment of the design by the designer and the client, and this can take
several forms with increasing levels of sophistication. It can be used
for immediate visualization within Autocad, it can be exported into
rendering software to obtain photo-realistic views (Fig. 11), or into a
virtual reality system for virtual walk-throughs. It also can be utilized
to generate a physical model using a rapid prototyping machine. The
two-dimensional drawings can be used as licensing and planning
application drawings for the design to be approved by the town hall,
or as construction drawings to guide the construction of the building,
following standard procedures.
The bill of quantities is a complete list of the construction elements
required to build the design and it is used to facilitate budgeting and
manufacturing. For each element modelled by the computer, a record
is inserted in an Autolisp list. Each record contains a number
identifying the particular element, a code specifying the type of
element, and values with its dimensions in the design. This list is
converted by the function Record and saved in .xls, the standard Excel
le format, and in .txt. The converted list can be used for generating
the budget and the specications brief. It also can be used for the
automatic production of prefabricated elements with the specied
dimensions in the right quantity. The budget is a quick way of
assessing the feasibility of the design, which can aid both the client
and the designer during the design decision-making stage.
7. Discussion and conclusion
This paper describes the latest development in research aimed at
devising a framework for the mass customization of housing. Previous
research has proposed a general theoretical model that encompassed
a design system, a building system, and a computer system. The design
system encoded the rules for composing design solutions, whereas the
building system specied how to produce them. The computer system
was used to control and integrate the two systems using computer
aided design and manufacturing. Previous research also proposed a
detailed model for the implementation of the design system, but the
link between design and fabrication was yet to be implemented.
Current research establishes this connection by implementing a
computer system that links existing design and building systems.
In addition, there are six important differences between the
current and the earlier project.
First, the previous project used a shape grammar to codify the rules
of the design system, whereas the current one relies on parametric
design. A shape grammars is a well-dened formalism that facilitates
the process of devising, structuring, and applying rule systems for
design. However, a shape grammar is difcult and time-consuming to
implement in the computer because it requires the solution to difcult
technical problems linked to shape recognition and rule application.
On the other hand, parametric design neither offers a clear way of
structuring a design system, nor does it provide a logical explanation
of how designs are generated, instead it relies on the design rules'
capacity or on the design system creator's vision. Nevertheless, it is
much easier to implement and apply in the computer. Because the
design system used in the current research was devised for the
purpose by the architect, its rules were fairly clear, making it
straightforward to develop a parametric model.
Second, the previous project envisaged a clear separation between
the generation of the design brief and the derivation of a matching
solution, whereas the current one does not. This separation allowed
greater exibility in the specication of the design brief, but implied
that the user only saw the impact of the decisions made during the
specication process after the program generating the corresponding
solution. By having the 3D model evolve as the user makes his/her
choices, it is possible to visualize and correct the result immediately,
thereby facilitating the generation of designs tailored to family needs.
But in the previous project the design brief formulation system could
 D. Benros, J.P. Duarte / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 310320
be used in combination with other design solution generation
systems, making it a wider purpose system. The current system is,
from this viewpoint, narrower in scope.
Third, in the computer implementation of the previous project,
there was a separation between the rules of the design system and the
rule application engine. These were encoded separately. The engine
relied on the Java Expert System Shell and could be used together with
other rule sets. Although, the rules were specic to the design system,
they could be combined or inserted in other rule sets and re-used in
other design systems. On the other hand, the implementation of the
current project was specic to the given design and building systems
and could not be carried on to other systems, at least not without
manipulating the code. However, the methodologies used for
developing both systems could be extrapolated and used in the
elaboration of other customized mass housing systems, as discussed
below.
Fourth, in the previous project, the application of the shape
grammar rules was exible. That is, there was no rigid sequence
of rule application. In the current project, the design process is
constrained in a localized, sequential way: within a building, design
proceeds oor by oor; within a oor, from the left to the right
apartment; and within an apartment from zone 1 to zone 4. It may
be possible to change the current implementation to make it more
exible so that the user could work on the different parts of the
building alternately. But after a certain point the program could
become too complex and difcult to manage because parametric
design requires a rigid overall program structure. In this case, it would
be probably easier to use shape grammars instead.
Fifth, the previous project used full design automation, which
allowed the client to manipulate it, whereas the current one is mainly
targeted at the architect. As a result, it was developed as a design
support tool and the level of automation is noticeably lower. This
avoided complex technical problems, such as shape recognition and
optimization, and made programming easier. Additionally, because
the architect is not bypassed, the tool is more likely to be appreciated
by the architectural community.
Sixth, the universe of design solutions in the previous project was
considerably bigger. It encompassed millions of different layouts for
the rst oor alone, whereas in the current project there are only
hundreds of possible different apartments. Given the size of the
solution range in the current project, the development of a grammar-
based implementation could not be justied, even if there were no
time constraints. If the solution base increased, the scenario could
change. A larger universe of solutions could imply a wider range of
parameter values, more parameters, or even more programming
functions. For the last two cases, coding could require too many
conditional expressions to control the program ow and, therefore,
become too complex. In this scenario, the use of shape grammars
would be more appropriate. Shape grammars have devices embedded
in the rules, such as pattern recognition, labels, and descriptions,
which allow computation control on a local level. They avoid complex
centralized forms of control and dispersed external control devices,
thereby making it easier to develop the implementation incremen-
tally. Nevertheless, the solution base of the current system could be
still considerably enlarged to increase diversity and the opportunity
for customization within the parametric design paradigm.
In brief, although the shape grammar-based implementation of the
previous design system was successful, the use of shape grammars
was avoided because parametric design t the goals and constraints of
the current project better. Full design automation was not a goal, the
universe of design solutions was relatively small, and there were
signicant time constraints. To put it simply, shape grammars are
more powerful at representing expert's knowledge, they are more
exible and better suited to develop general purpose systems, but
they are more demanding in terms of implementation. Parametric
design is more suitable when the level of intelligence of the desired
319
program is lower, when one is not concerned with developing a
general purpose system and is working on a tight schedule.
The proposed framework is a viable alternative to conventional
design methodologies and relies on a design tool that integrates
architectural design and building construction. This tool facilitates
several of the tasks involved in the provision of housing. At the
conceptual design stage, it facilitates the exploration and visualization
of solutions, thereby allowing the solutions to be tailored to their
users. At the detail design stage, it supports and accelerates the
execution of repetitive tasks, such as construction drawings, specica-
tions, and budget. At the production stage, it permits the production of
differentiated building parts using automated manufacturing pro-
cesses. Thus, the proposed framework also overcomes some of the
difculties connected to previous construction paradigms. Compared
with handcrafted processes, the use of industrialized methods of
production saves time and permits better cost and quality control.
When compared with traditional prefabrication methods, the use of
automated manufacturing avoids excessive repetition and permits
just-in-time production, thereby overriding the need to maintain
extensive stocks.
Results show that the combined use of exible design, data
communication, manufacturing and industrialized building processes
amounts to a successful way of customizing mass housing and
increasing building quality. In the current case, time constrains meant
that efforts were made to use pre-existing design and building
systems to illustrate the feasibility of the proposed framework. This
required adjustment of the design system to make it compatible with
the building system. For this reason, the abstract design elements and
physical building components did not fully correspond with one
another. However, it is possible to develop design and building
systems from scratch in which such correspondence is better. In this
case, it might be possible to take the features and qualities of the
fabrication methods into account in the conception of the design
system, thereby achieving greater integration of the two. Preliminary
work in this direction is already underway at the digital fabrication
group at MIT by Larry Sass and Terry Knight, focusing on mono-
material systems for small housing types [32,33]. This work opens up
an interesting line of research but it remains unclear how it can be
applied to larger housing types, such as the one addressed in this
paper. It might be difcult to maintain a straight correspondence
between design and building components beyond a certain scale.
In the proposed framework, the designer creates a system, rather
than a specic design. One drawback is the time and cost involved
in the development of the integrated system and its computer
implementation, when compared with traditional approaches. Our
experience shows that it requires a larger investment at the
conception stage, i.e. in the design of the design system to devise
and clarify the rules and to guarantee that they can yield varied
solutions. It also requires a larger investment in the development and
testing of the computer implementation, resulting in a time-consum-
ing and costly process. However, the investment can be recovered at
the application stage, when the tool is used to customize the design
and to generate the information required for its production. Whether
the balance is positive depends largely on the size of the universe of
design solutions and on the scale of the project. In short, there is no
point in developing an integrated system that can yield only a few
differentiated solutions, as there is no point in going to these lengths if
only a few solutions will be required. In these cases, it is less time-
consuming and probably cheaper, and therefore wiser, to follow a
traditional approach.
The proposed framework raises issues of authorship. Who is the
author of a housing solution developed with the integrated system:
the designers of the design, the building, and the computer systems,
or the designer who uses the integrated system? Authorship is a
secondary issue; the main issue is to guarantee affordable, quality
housing. Authorship issues do nonetheless raise economic and legal
320 D. Benros, J.P. Duarte / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 310320
aspects that might jeopardize the implementation of the framework
and so it is important to tackle them. One possible solution might be to
have distributed authorship. The degree of authorship of each
designer should depend on their contribution to the nal design. If
the integrated system is a very intelligent program their designers
should have a greater share in the authorship, otherwise the user
should become the main shareholder. In any case, these issues can be
overcome through negotiation and the use of legal devices such as
royalties, copyright transference fees, and so on. They should not,
therefore, prevent the development and implementation of such a
framework.
Another key issue in the proposed framework is the methodology
followed in the design of the design system. Future work will be
concerned with clarifying such a methodology.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the kind support and interest of the Foresight,
Innovation, and Incubation team of Arup's ofces in London, especially
Alvise Simondetti, Chris Luebkeman, and Kristina Shea. This work was
partially developed at Ove Arup in London and at the Technical
University of Lisbon.
References
[1] R. Bachelor, Henry Ford: Mass Production, Modernism and Design, Manchester
University Press, Manchester, 1994.
[2] E. Kupferberg, Gropius Bauhausbauten Dessau, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, Berlin, 1974.
[3] P. Boudon, Lived-in Architecture, Le Corbusier's Pessac revisited, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1979.
[4] E. Clark Jr., The American Family Home, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986.
[5] N.J. Habraken, El Diseo de Soportes, Gustavo Gili, Barcelona, 1974.
[6] E. Molteni, lvaro Siza: Barrio de la Malagueira em vora, Edicions UPC, Universitat
Politcnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, 1997.
[7] J. Womack, D. Roos, The Machine that Changed the World, Rawson & Associates,
Published by Simon & Schuster, New York, NY, 1990.
[8] A. Tofer, Future Shock, Random House, New York, NY, 1970.
[9] A. Tofer, The Third Wave, Morrow, New York, NY, 1980.
[10] S.M. Davis, Future Perfect, Addison-Wesley, New York, NY, 1987.
[11] B.J. Pine II, Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1993.
[12] G. Stiny, L. March, Design machines, Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design 8 (1981) 245255.
[13] J.P. Duarte, A. Simondetti, Basic grammars and rapid prototyping: computer
generation and fabrication of designs, Proceedings of the EG-SEA-AI Workshop,
1997, pp. 117120, Lahti, Finland.
[14] Y. Wang, J.P. Duarte, Automatic generation and fabrication of designs, Automation
in Construction 11 (3) (2002) 291302.
[15] G. Stiny, J. Gips, Shape grammars and the generative specication of painting and
sculpture, in: C.V. Freiman (Ed.), Information Processing 71, North-Holland,
Amsterdam, 1972, pp. 14601465.
[16] G. Stiny, Introduction to shape and shape grammars, Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design 7 (1980) 343351.
[17] J.P. Duarte, Modular systems: towards third wave architecture, Innovative Housing
Practices, Pergamon Press, London, 1989, pp. 229234.
[18] J.P. Duarte, Tipo e mdulo: Abordagem ao Processo de Produo de Habitao,
LNEC, Lisboa, 1995.
[19] N.J. Habraken, Type as a social agreement, Proceedings of the Asian Congress of
Architects, Seoul, 1988.
[20] J.P. Duarte, Customizing Mass Housing: A Discursive Grammar for Siza's
Malagueira Houses. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Architecture, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 2001.
[21] J.P. Duarte, A Discursive Grammar for Customizing Mass Housing: the Case of Siza's
Houses at Malagueira, Automation in Construction, vol. 14 (2), 2005, pp. 265275.
[22] G. Stiny, A Note on the Description of Designs, Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design, vol. 8, 1981, pp. 257267.
[23] D. Benrs, J.P. Duarte, F. Branco, A system for providing customized housing
integrated design and construction using a computer tool, Proceedings of the 12th
International Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures Conference, Sydney,
2007.
[24] M. Noguchi, A Choice Model for Mass Customisation of Lower-cost and Higher-
performance Housing in Sustainable Development, Ph.D. Dissertation, School of
Architecture, McGill University, 2004.
[25] M. Noguchi, A choice model for mass customisation, International Journal of Mass
Customization 2 (3/4) (2008) 264281.
[26] M. Noguchi, C. Hernndez, A mass custom design approach to upgrading
traditional housing development in Mexico, Journal of Habitat International 29 (2)
(2005) 325336.
[27] L. Sass, R. Oxman, Materializing design: the implications of rapid prototyping in
digital design, Design Studies 27 (3) (2005) 235355.
[28] L. Sass, M. Botha, Instant house: a model of design production with digital
fabrication, International Journal of Architectural Computing 4 (4) (2006)
109123.
[29] L. Sass, A physical design grammar: a production system for layered manufactur-
ing machines, Automation in Construction 17 (6) (2007) 691704.
[30] M. Gausa, Housing: New Alternatives, New Systems, 1st ed., ACTAR and Birkhuser,
Barcelona, 1998.
[31] M. Gausa, J. Salazar, Singular Housing, the Private Domain, ACTAR and Birkhuser,
Barcelona, 1999.
[32] L. Sass, A physical design grammar: a production system for layered manufactur-
ing, Automation in Construction 17 (3) 691704.
[33] T. Knight, L. Sass, Looks Count: computing and constructing visually expressed
mass customized housing, in press.