M607 Evolutionary Computation and Parametric Pattern Generation ...

Evolutionary Computation and Parametric Pattern Generation for Airport Terminal Design Ioannis Chatzikonstantinou Thesis Supervisors: Dr. Ir. Michael Bittermann Prof. Dr. Ing. Patrick Teuffel

Ioannis Chatzikonstantinou

Evolutionary Computation and Parametric Pattern Generation for Airport Terminal Design

Graduation Thesis for the MSc Building Technology at TU Delft. June 2011 Thesis Supervisors: Dr. Ir. Michael Bittermann Prof. Dr. Ing. Patrick Teuffel

To my sister, Anastasia

Ioannis Chatzikonstantinou

/ Contents 8

Introduction 1. Research Methodology 1.1. Passenger Terminal Typology 1.2. Parametric Model 1.3. Delveopment of the Evolutionart Algorithm Component 1.4 Testing and Case Studies

10 10 10 11 11

2. The Design of the Passenger Terminal 2.1. Passenger Terminal Positioning 2.2. Functional Organization 2.3. Operational Efficiency and Movement 2.4. Retailing and Commercial Activity 2.5. The Level Of Service (LOS) Standards 2.6. Energy Performance

12 12 14 15 16 17 17

3. Defining a Design Model 3.1. The Airport Terminal Model 3.1.1. Generative Principles 3.1.2. Design Parameters 3.2. Performance Criteria 3.2.1. Cost 3.2.2. Accessibility 3.2.3. Energy Performance 3.2.4. Retail Suitability 3.3. Constraints 3.3.1. Self Intersenction 3.3.2. Aircraft Circulation 3.3.3. Capacity 3.3.4. Fuzzifying Goals 3.3.5. Combining Hard and Soft Constraints

19 19 19 21 21 22 24 26 28 29 29 30 30 31 32

4. Optimizing Solutions 4.1. Evolutionary Computation 4.1.1. Structure and Function of EAs 4.1.2. Single and Multi-Objective EAs 4.1.3. Objective Functions and Constraints 4.2. The NSGA-II 4.2.1. Process 4.2.2. Elitism 4.3. The Implemented Algorithm

38 38 38 39 40 40 40 42 43

5. Testing and Case Study 5.1. The ZDT-1 Test 5.2. Model Testing 5.2.1. Preparation 5.2.2. Testing 5.2.3. Discussion

44 44 44 44 46 46

6

Evolutionary Computation and Parametric Pattern Generation for Airport Terminal Design

5.3. Case Study 5.3.1. Site Conditions 5.3.2. Adapting the Parametric Model 5.4. Moving on to Detail 5.4.1. The Parametric Definition of the Envelope 5.4.2. Optimizing Solutions

47 47 48 51 51 53

6. Conclusions

62

7. References

63

Appendix A1

66

Appendix A2

70

Appendix A3

76

Appendix A4

84

Appendix A5

90



7

Ioannis Chatzikonstantinou

Fig. 1 Overview of the final case study that has been designed using the proposed computational optimization method, both regarding the layout as well as the facade development.

8

Evolutionary Computation and Parametric Pattern Generation for Airport Terminal Design

/ Introduction It is without doubt that airport terminals are some of the most complex building types in existence. Their scale, the nature of their functions, the strict security measures as well as the function-specific components and building equipment that is present in such buildings are all factors that increase their level of complexity as a building type. In a real design situation, dealing with the variety of design parameters that the design of an airport terminal incorporates can be a difficult task to manage and may sometimes become an impediment to the design process. Furthermore, solely because of the enormous amount of possible design solutions that exists even for a relatively small set of design parameters1, the discovery of optimal or near optimal solutions through a traditional design approach is not guaranteed to happen. Standardization is the traditional remedy to this kind of complexityinduced problems and it’s results are clearly evident in buildings such as airport terminals. However, the existence of a wide range of different design contexts, goals and requirements, as well as arbitrarily defined case-specific issues, gives birth to a “design space” that is wide enough to be worthwhile of exploration. Given these assumptions, it is proposed within the context of this thesis that the design of layouts for airport terminals be addressed by the use of computation-based design methods. Specifically, the method outlined in this report is centered around the design of a Parametric Model that represents a spectrum of airport terminal designs and an Evolutionary Algorithm to search for solutions within this spectrum that are optimal according to predefined efficiency and sustainability related criteria. The method will be evaluated by applying it to a case study, which will be the investigation of an alternate proposal for the New Doha International Airport in Qatar.

1 This situation is commonly referred to in literature as “Combinatorial Explosion”. It occurs when a huge number of possible combinations are created by increasing the number of entities which can be combined--forcing us to consider a constrained set of possibilities when we consider related problems. It outlines vividly the enormous design domains that are encountered even in relatively simple problems, let alone in complex design fields such as architecture.

9

Ioannis Chatzikonstantinou

1 / Research Methodology The methodology that the thesis is based on can be broadly divided into four different parts: 1.

Research on the Passenger Terminal Typology

2. Design of a Parametric Model that is able to generate a range of Airline Passenger Terminal layouts 3. Implementation and development of an Evolutionary Algorithm (NSGA-II) into a component for the Grasshopper Parametric Design Environment 4. Testing of the coupled Parametric Model with the EA; investigation of a case study using the proposed design method. Advancement of one picked solution to a greater level of detail.

1.1. Passenger Terminal Typology This stage includes all literature study that has been done to identify the particular characteristics and priorities that take part in the design of airport terminals. Topics that will be covered range from the study of movement within terminals to the climate design and suitability for retail use. A detailed overview of this stage and the findings regarding the design of airport passenger terminals are discussed in the 2rd section of this report.

1.2. Parametric Model This stage includes the work done on the generation of the parametric model of the airport terminal, the implementation of the design objectives into parametric functions related to the input parameters of the model and finally the development of the EA itself into a component for the Grasshopper Parametric Modelling Environment. The development of the parametric model of the airport terminal is discussed in section 3 of the report.

Fig. 2 Computer rendering of a generated solution.

10

Evolutionary Computation and Parametric Pattern Generation for Airport Terminal Design

1.3. Development of the Evolutionary Algorithm Component Two stages comprise this part of the study. The first is the literature review and research on Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs), and especially the study of the NSGA II algorithm, which is a widely referred to, fast and robust Genetic Algorithm, developed by Deb et al. (2002). The second part is the implementation of the NSGA-II algorithm into a Grasshopper component. This includes all the necessary programming to transfer the logic of the algorithm, it’s advancement by incorporating state of the art features, as well as the design of the connection between the algorithm and Grasshopper. I should mention at this point that, during this stage, the expertise and willingness of my main mentor, Dr. Michael Bittermann was indispensable and crucial to my understanding of the concepts behind and the inner workings of the aforementioned algorithm. This topic is covered extensively in part 4 of the report.

1.4. Testing and Case Studies The implemented EA is then evaluated against a series of known test problems, as well as in combination with the parametric model in order to determine how it performs. As a final stage of the thesis project, the results of the design stage (the parametric model together with the EA) are applied to an actual design scenario of an airport terminal. The site that will be studied is the new International Airport in Doha, Qatar. Initially, the parametric model will be adjusted to the specifics of the site and building program. As a next step, the EA will be applied in order to perform a search for optimal configurations. Finally, one of these configurations will be manually chosen and developed in detail, focusing on the detailing of the shell structure. This stage will be discussed extensively in section 5 of the report. Lastly, the report will be summed up by presenting a discussion and conlusions on the project.

11

Ioannis Chatzikonstantinou

2 / The Design of the Passenger Terminal The design of airline terminals is an enormously complex design task. There are two main factors that contribute to this. The first one is the large amount of often contradicting performance factors that are being pursued and come into play during the design of airline terminals. One can think of the various different goals that a terminal needs to achieve: Efficiency, aesthetics, safety and security and so on. Adding to this is the enormous amount of possible solutions that exist to the problem of arranging an airline terminal, stemming from the large scale, the complexity of operation and the relatively free form of this type of building. These factors eventually make up an extremely complex design task. In figures 3-6 four different representations of contemporary airline terminals are depicted, which demonstrate clearly the variety of design approaches. The rest of chapter 2 of this report attempts to elaborate on the general design factors that take part during the design of an airport terminal, from a perspective that seeks to present an all-round framework for assessing the performance of an airline terminal design at the layout level.

2.1. Design Requirements & Principles The brief for the 2007 Dallas / Fort Worth “New Visions of Security: Re-Life of a DFW Airport Terminal” competition mentions six design factors that should become the focus of any passenger terminal design proposal, which are summarized below: 1.

Accommodating current and emerging security requirements

2. Incorporating sustainable design 3. Optimizing operational efficiencies 4. Incorporating space for retail and concessions 5. Converting its 1970’s architecture into a 21st century statement 6. Incorporating the airport’s new train system, SkyLink Apart from points 5 and 6 which are specific to the particular design case, the rest could be recognized as key design factors in any modern airport terminal design case. According to Edwards (2005), five distinct terminal and pier concepts exist, each with its own advantages, and each appropriate for different situations: •

Central terminal with pier/finger (centralized terminal)

•

Open apron or linear (semi-centralized or decentralized terminal)

•

Remote apron or transporter (centralized terminal)

•

Central terminal with remote satellites (centralized terminal)

•

Unit terminal (semi-centralized or decentralized terminal).

Some arrangements that are directly repreentative of the above typologies are visible in figure 7. Between these well defined typologies, though, there is certainly space for innovation at the layout level. It is, after all, evident if we take a look at just a few of all the different terminal configurations that exist (figure 8). Innovative designs may be reached by generating “hybrids” that combine individual properties of each terminal type. A suitable manner of generating a model that can incorporate all above typologies, as well as in-between arrangements, is a parametric definition.

12

Evolutionary Computation and Parametric Pattern Generation for Airport Terminal Design

Fig. 3 Doha Intl. Airport Architect: HOK Architects

Fig. 4 Shenzen Airport Architect: Massimilliano Fuksas

Fig. 5 Shanghai Pudong Intl. Airport Architect: Rogers Stirk Harbour

Fig. 6 Bangkok Intl. Airport Architect: Murphy Jahn

13

Ioannis Chatzikonstantinou

Fig. 7 Standard Terminal Types. (Ashford, 1992)

2.2. Passenger Terminal Positioning Because the terminal building is part of a larger system of airport elements (including roads, apron areas and aircraft taxiways), its position is determined precisely by the masterplan. This will prescribe a specific location, the means by which connections are made to other facilities, and the extent of the footprint and height of the passenger terminal building. The geometry of the terminal building reflects in a direct fashion the wider geometry of the airport: a point that designers need to bear in mind if passengers are not to become disorientated. The distance that the aircraft needs to taxi between the terminal building and the runway has a large bearing upon airline costs. Long taxi length means longer flight times, increased fuel costs, and the potential for ground traffic delay. The relationship between the location of the terminal and that of the runways (and taxiways) is crucial. Different configurations of termi-

14

Evolutionary Computation and Parametric Pattern Generation for Airport Terminal Design

Fig. 8 Examples of various terminal layouts of airports in the United States.

ANC – Ted Stevens Anchor age Intern ational Airpor t

BHM – Birmingham Airpor t

BNA – Nashville Intern ational Airpor t

DAL – Dallas Love Field

ABQ – Albuquerque Intern ational Airpor t

BOS – BostonLoganIntern ational Airpor t

BDL – Bradley Intern ational Airpor t

BWI – BaltimoreW ashington Intern ational Airpot

CHS – Charleston Intern ational Airpor t

CVG – GreaterCincinn atiIntern ational Airpor t

CLE– Cleveland HopkinsIntern ational Airpor t

nal buildings, taxiways and runways affect design to a significant degree (Edwards, 2005).

2.3. Functional Organization Most terminal buildings consist of six distinct territories on departure (Edwards, 2005): •

Entrance concourse

•

Flight check-in and information

•

Shops, bars, restaurants, cinemas etc.

•

Passport control

•

Departure lounge and duty-free shops

•

Pier and gate to plane

and four territories on arrival: •

Arrivals lounge

•

Baggage reclaim

•

Customs and immigration control

•

Exit hall

15

Ioannis Chatzikonstantinou

According to a scheme presented by Manataki and Zografos (2009), the passenger terminal can be also divided into Functional Areas. According to this scheme, the different parts which constitute the airport terminal in its entirety are: 1.

Unrestricted Airport Functional Area, including all facilities in the airport terminal area before the Boarding Pass or Pass- port Control facility for departing passengers, and after the Arrival Hall for arriving passengers; it is accessible by all airport users. Particularly, the facilities that may exist in the Unrestricted Functional Area include: Ticketing, Checkin, Boarding Pass/Ticket Control, Passport Control, Waiting Lounges, Arrival Halls, and Ancillary Service facilities (i.e., Retail and Food & Beverage facilities).

2. Controlled Airport Functional Area, including all facilities in the area defined after the Boarding Pass or Passport Control facility and before gates area; it refers only to departing passengers. It may include the following facilities: Security Screening, Waiting Lounges, and Ancillary Service facilities. 3. Gates Airport Functional Area, including all facilities that may exist around gates; it refers only to departing passengers who have passed through Security Screening. This functional area may include Gate Lounges, Passport Control and Ancillary Service facilities. 4. Arrivals’ Controlled Airport Functional Area, including all facilities arriving passengers may pass through after entering the terminal (from the airside) and before proceeding to the arrivals hall. This functional area is denoted only to arriving passengers and includes the following facilities: Passport Control, Baggage Claim, Customs, and Ancillary Service facilities. The classification of terminal areas according to their function is of particular importance for the development of a generative model for the passenger terminal, since it introduces a structured approach regarding it’s layout, which in turn is highly compatible with parametric generation methods. Following such a distinction a parametric model could reflect a layout and at the same time a functional organization, an implied sequencing of it’s functions.

2.4. Operational Efficiency and Movement In their essence, airport passenger terminals are movement systems. Therefore, the operational efficiency of a terminal is mainly translated into the efficiency of movement and distribution of it’s users. Passenger terminals are called in general to facilitate at least two different passenger flows, the ones departing and the ones arriving, as well as two baggage flows, again of those arriving and those to be loaded on planes (Edwards, 2005). It is important therefore that the imperative of movement is recognized in the allocation of space, the ordering system of structure, and the handling of light. Six basic criteria should be observed in the design of passenger movement in the terminal building: •

Easy orientation for the travelling public

•

Shortest possible walking distances

•

Minimum level changes

•

Avoidance of passenger cross-flows

•

Built-in flexibility

•

Separation of arriving and departing passengers.

Two groups of opposing design “imperatives” begin to appear already regarding passenger movement within the terminal: The first, passenger-oriented, drives terminal design towards minimal configurations, clean movement paths and orientation; the other, aiming to satisfy

16

Evolutionary Computation and Parametric Pattern Generation for Airport Terminal Design

capacity, often has to impose complicated arrangements (level changes, direction changes etc.) in order to reach economical spatial layout solutions.

2.5. Retailing and Commercial Activity The revenue that is generated through non aviation-related activities within a passenger terminal is of continuously increasing importance. The lack of interest of many governments to fund airport development, combined with the rapidly increasing cost of expansion has demanded that serious consideration be given to the revenue-generating potential of any airport from the initial concept stage. The volume of passengers within an airport terminal is large in comparison with airport and airline staff and, as the prime reason for having the facility the passenger is seen as a major source of airport income during the time that he or she spends in the terminal. However, the disadvantages that uncontrolled placing and expansion of commercial facilities brings to the achievement of the terminal’s primary function, which is to facilitate movement between land and airside, are more profound than the benefits in terms of increased terminal income from the retail facilities (Freathy and O’Connell 1998). Therefore, decisions regarding placement of retail facilities are of primary importance in terminal design. Doganis (1992), cited in Freathy and O’Connell (1998) maintains that retail facilities should be located in the direct line of the passenger flow and as close to the departure gates as possible. Because many travellers experience a degree of anxiety when travelling by air, few will deviate from the main passenger routes in order to purchase retail products. Bingman (1996), cited in Freathy and O’Connell (1998) sees the configuration of the retail offer as a dilemma for the airport operator: If concentrated in one specific part of the departure area, it creates the visual appeal of a shopping centre, which in turn creates synergy between outlets and increases the propensity of customers to spend. Alternatively, if the retail offer is spread out accross the whole of the departures area, it provides the passenger with a greater number of opportunities to purchase. Finally, it is important for the passengers to have the retail outlets in their line of vision before actually encountering them. This will help stimulate purchasing behaviour and possibly trigger impulse sales.

2.6. The Level Of Service (LOS) Standards The Level Of Service (LOS) is a standardization proposed by the IATA to provide a common reference for evaluating the level of service provided by passenger terminals for a given situation. Here the term is related to the spatial comfort that one experiences within a terminal. The LOS standards therefore classify conditions in terminals according to the space available to each terminal occupant. LOS Level A equals to excellent conditions, level D equals to desirably the lowest level achieved in peak operation and level F is the point of system breakdown or congestion (Ashford, 1992). Usually, Level of Service C is a good design tradeoff for most airport terminals, Level of Service B is an excellent design practice if the budget allows it and Level of Service A is usually too prohibitive to implement (Trani, 2002). The concept of Level of Service, apart from specifying spatial requirements for standing conditions, has been expanded to address flows of pedestrians (Fruin, 1993). In Table 1 the standards for pedestrian flows are presented and in figure 9 a graphic representation of passenger flow for various conditions is available.

17

Ioannis Chatzikonstantinou

Value

Pedestrian Average Area (m²/p) Flow (p/ m-min)

Remarks

A

3.3

Excellent service; free flow conditions; excellent level of comfort

B

23-33

2.3-3.3

High level of service; condition of stable flow; very few delays

C

33-49

2.4-2.3

Good level of service; stable flow; few delays

D

49-66

0.9-1.4

Adequate level of service; condition of unstable flow; acceptable delays

E

66-82

0.5-0.9

Inadequate level of service; condition of unstable flow; unacceptable delays

F

Variable Flow