This thesis describes a doctoral project which has addressed some of the problems of automatically performing cartographic generalization in a holistic manner, that is, processing the map features in the context of the whole map rather than individual features in isolation. The approach is based on two key ideas: firstly, that the map surface can be represented by a structure based on simplicial complexes which provides useful relationships for topology and proximity and facilitates many of the fundamental generalization operations. Secondly, that the epistemological structures needed for generalization can be represented by a hierarchy of "context" frames, each of which encapsulate the knowledge required to recognize, generalize and resolve a cartographic situation. A data structure that uses simplicial complexes to represent map objects has been designed and implemented. Each object is described by a set of two-dimensional simplices (triangles) that are maintained in the form of a constrained Delaunay triangulation. This structure gives a fully connected two-dimensional plenum that stores important spatial relationships such as "enclosed", "adjacent" and "between" explicitly. This simplicial data structure (SDS), as it is called, can be used directly to perform several types of operations necessary for automatic generalization, for example, automatic overlap detection, displacement, merging, enlargement, simplification of building outlines and skeletonization. Algorithms for many of these operators have been implemented while others are proposed. Pseudo-code and descriptions are used to document many of these operators, results are given and discussed. A frame-based architecture is proposed which provides a framework for the representation and application of knowledge for generalization. The project was funded by an EPSRC CASE studentship in collaboration with the Ordnance Survey.

The main goal of this thesis is the development of a novel methodology to generate creative solutions at functional level for design tasks without binding solution spaces with designers&rsquo / individual experiences and prejudices. For this purpose, an evolutionary methodology for the conceptual design of engineering products has been proposed. This methodology performs evaluation, combination and modification of the existing solutions repetitively to generate new solution alternatives. Therefore, initially a representation scheme, which is generic enough to cover all alternatives in solution domain, has been defined. Following that, the evolutionary operations have been defined and two evaluation metrics have been proposed. Finally, the computer implementation of the developed theory has been performed. The test-runs of developed software resulted in creative alternatives for the design task. Consequently, the evolutionary design methodology presents a systematic design approach for less experienced or inexperienced designers and establishes a base for experienced designers to conceive many other solution alternatives beyond their experiences.

No description available.

Целью данного исследования является разработка и реализация приложения для автоматизации армирования железобетонных конструкций. Предметом исследования является возможность автоматизации армирования железобетонных конструкций с использованием ТИМ. Результатом работы является приложение (плагин) для ПО Autodesk Revit в виде окна-таблицы, которое позволяет выровнять привязки к осям зон дополнительного армирования, а также округлять длину стержня. / The purpose of this study is to develop and implement an application for automating the reinforcement of reinforced concrete structures. The subject of the study is the possibility of automating the reinforcement of reinforced concrete structures using BIM. The result of the work is an application (plugin) for Autodesk Revit software in the form of a table window, which allows you to align the bindings to the axes of additional reinforcement zones, as well as round the length of the rod.

Industrie 4.0 und aktuelle Entwicklungen in dem Bereich der produzierenden Unternehmen erfordern hohe Anpassungsleistungen von Menschen und von Maschinen gleichermaßen. In Smart Factories werden Produktionsmitarbeiter zu Wissensarbeitern. Dazu bedarf es neben neuen, intelligenten, technischen Lösungen auch neuer Ansätze für Arbeitsorganisation, Trainings- und Qualifizierungskonzepte, die mit adaptierbaren technischen Systemen flexibel zusammenarbeiten. Das durch die EU geförderte Projekt Factory2Fit entwickelt Lösungen für die Mensch-Technik-Interaktion in automatisierten Produktionssystemen, welche eine hohe Anpassungsfähigkeit an die Fähigkeiten, Kompetenzen und Präferenzen der individuellen Mitarbeiter bieten und damit gleichzeitig den Herausforderungen einer höchst kundenindividuellen Produktion gewachsen sind. Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden die grundlegenden Ziele und Ideen des Projektes vorgestellt sowie die Ansätze des Quantified-self im Arbeitskontext, die adaptive Automatisierung inklusive der verschiedenen Level der Automation sowie die spezifische Anwendung des partizipatorischen Designs näher beleuchtet. In den nächsten Arbeitsschritten innerhalb des Projektes gilt es nun, diese Konzepte um- und einzusetzen sowie zu validieren. Die interdisziplinäre Arbeitsweise sowie der enge Kontakt zwischen Wissenschafts-, Entwicklungs- und Anwendungspartnern sollten dazu beitragen, den Herausforderungen bei der Realisierung erfolgreich zu begegnen und zukunftsträchtige Smart Factory-Lösungen zu implementieren. Das Projekt Factory2Fit wird im Rahmen von Horizon 2020, dem EU Rahmenprogramm für Forschung und Innovation (H2020/2014-2020), mit dem Förderkennzeichen 723277 gefördert.

In the building automation domain, there are gaps among various tasks related to design engineering. As a result created system designs must be adapted to the given requirements on system functionality, which is related to increased costs and engineering effort than planned. For this reason standards are prepared to enable a coordination among these tasks by providing guidelines and unified artifacts for the design. Moreover, a huge variety of prefabricated devices offered from different manufacturers on the market for building automation that realize building automation functions by preprogrammed software components. Current methods for design creation do not consider this variety and design solution is limited to product lines of a few manufacturers and expertise of system integrators. Correspondingly, this results in design solutions of a limited quality. Thus, a great optimization potential of the quality of design solutions and coordination of tasks related to design engineering arises. For given design requirements, the existence of a high number of devices that realize required functions leads to a combinatorial explosion of design alternatives at different price and quality levels. Finding optimal design alternatives is a hard problem to which a new solution method is proposed based on heuristical approaches. By integrating problem specific knowledge into algorithms based on heuristics, a promisingly high optimization performance is achieved. Further, optimization algorithms are conceived to consider a set of flexibly defined quality criteria specified by users and achieve system design solutions of high quality. In order to realize this idea, optimization algorithms are proposed in this thesis based on goal-oriented operations that achieve a balanced convergence and exploration behavior for a search in the design space applied in different strategies. Further, a component model is proposed that enables a seamless integration of design engineering tasks according to the related standards and application of optimization algorithms.:1 Introduction 17 1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1.2 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1.3 Goals and Use of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1.4 Solution Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1.5 Organization of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2 Design Creation for Building Automation Systems 25 2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.2 Engineering of Building Automation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.3 Network Protocols of Building Automation Systems . . . . . . . 33 2.4 Existing Solutions for Design Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2.5 The Device Interoperability Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.6 Guidelines for Planning of Room Automation Systems . . . . . . 38 2.7 Quality Requirements on BAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.8 Quality Requirements on Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2.8.1 Quality Requirements Related to Project Planning . . . . 42 2.8.2 Quality Requirements Related to Project Implementation 43 2.9 Quality Requirements on Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.10 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 3 The Design Creation Task 47 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 3.2 System Design Composition Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3.2.1 Abstract and Detailed Design Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3.2.2 Mapping Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 3.3 Formulation of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3.3.1 Problem properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 3.3.2 Requirements on Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4 Solution Methods for Design Generation and Optimization 59 4.1 Combinatorial Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 4.2 Metaheuristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 4.3 Examples for Metaheuristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.3.1 Simulated Annealing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.3.2 Tabu Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 4.3.3 Ant Colony Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.3.4 Evolutionary Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 4.4 Choice of the Solver Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 4.5 Specialized Methods for Diversity Preservation . . . . . . . . . . 70 4.6 Approaches for Real World Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.6.1 Component-Based Mapping Problems . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.6.2 Network Design Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 4.6.3 Comparison of Solution Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 5 Automated Creation of Optimized Designs 79 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 5.2 Design Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 5.3 Component Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 5.3.1 Presumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 5.3.2 Integration of Component Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 5.4 Design Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 5.4.1 Component Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 5.4.2 Generation Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 5.5 Design Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 5.5.1 Problems and Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 5.5.2 Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 5.5.3 Application Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 5.6 Realization of the Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 5.6.1 Objective Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 5.6.2 Individual Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 5.7 Automated Design Creation For A Building . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 5.7.1 Room Spanning Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 5.7.2 Flexible Rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 5.7.3 Technology Spanning Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 5.7.4 Preferences for Mapping of Function Blocks to Devices . . 132 5.8 Further Uses and Applicability of the Approach . . . . . . . . . . 133 5.9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 6 Validation and Performance Analysis 137 6.1 Validation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 6.2 Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 6.3 Example Abstract Designs and Performance Tests . . . . . . . . 139 6.3.1 Criteria for Choosing Example Abstract Designs . . . . . 139 6.3.2 Example Abstract Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 6.3.3 Performance Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 6.3.4 Population Size P - Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 6.3.5 Cross-Over Probability pC - Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 157 6.3.6 Mutation Probability pM - Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 6.3.7 Discussion for Optimization Results and Example Designs 168 6.3.8 Resource Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 6.3.9 Parallelism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 6.4 Optimization Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 6.5 Framework Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 6.5.1 Components and Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 6.5.2 Workflow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 6.5.3 Optimization Control By Graphical User Interface . . . . 180 6.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 7 Conclusions 185 A Appendix of Designs 189 Bibliography 201 Index 211