Shape Grammar is a systematic tool used in the logical argumentive method in research for interpreting spatial design and activities. Shape grammar applies a group of shape rules in stages to create a set or a language of design. Researchers worldwide have used this method in various fields including architecture, arts, graphical design, and pattern recognition. Even in the case of architecture, researchers worldwide have implemented the shape grammar method to analyze patterns in various architectural fields. This study analyzed publication trends in the shape grammar domain using “Bibliometrix”, an open-source tool that uses the R package. Research papers from the Web of Science and Scopus (WoS) database were identified and assessed in terms of annual publication trends, contributions of various authors, countries, citation counts of authors, universities, popular keywords, journal trends, etc. A comprehensive literature review of all relevant research papers available in the WoS and Scopus academic databases on shape grammar and its application in architecture was also conducted as part of this study. The research paper concludes with the possible research opportunities in the domain of shape grammar.
StinyG. Introduction to shape and shape grammars. London: Sage, 1980.
2.
KnightT. Shape grammars in education and practice: histrory and prospects. Int J Des Comput1999; 2: 82152.
3.
LiuYZhangKKongJ, et al.Spatial specification and reasoning using grammars: from theory to application. Spatial Cognit Comput2018; 18: 315–340.
4.
MarchL. Forty years of shape and shape grammars, 1971 - 2011. Nexus Netw J2011; 13: 5–13.
5.
VitinsBJAxhausenKW. Shape grammars overview and assessment for transport and urban design: review, terminology, assessment, and application. J Transp Land Use2016; 9: 65–96.
6.
AhmadSChaseSC. Style representation in design grammars. Environ Plann Plann Des2012; 39: 486–500.
7.
MandićMTepavčevićB. Analysis of shape grammar application as a tool for urban design. Environ Plann Plann Des2015; 42: 675–687.
8.
ChaiKHXiaoX. Understanding design research: a bibliometric analysis of Design Studies (1996-2010). Des Stud2012; 33: 24–43.
9.
DonthuNKumarSMukherjeeD, et al.How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res2021; 133: 285–296.
10.
EloySPauwelsPEconomouA. AI EDAM special issue: advances in implemented shape grammars: solutions and applications. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf2018; 32: 131–137.
11.
HaakonsenSMRønnquistALabonnoteN. Fifty years of shape grammars: a systematic mapping of its application in engineering and architecture. Int J Architect Comput2022; 21(1): 147807712210898.
12.
SubanSA. Bibliometric analysis on wellness tourism – citation and co-citation analysis. Int Hosp Rev2023; 37: 359–383.
13.
NadkarniRRPuthuvayiB. A comprehensive literature review of Multi-Criteria Decision Making methods in heritage buildings. J Build Eng2020; 32: 101814.
14.
LazarNChithraK. A comprehensive literature review on development of Building Sustainability Assessment Systems. J Build Eng2020; 32: 101450.
15.
LazarNChithraK. Comprehensive bibliometric mapping of publication trends in the development of Building Sustainability Assessment Systems. Environ Dev Sustain2020; 23. DOI: 10.1007/s10668-020-00796-w.
16.
AriaMassimoCorradoCuccurullo. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics. 2017; 11(4). DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007, In this issue.
17.
DuarteJP. Towards the mass customization of housing: the grammar of Siza's houses at Malagueira. Environ Plann Plann Des2005; 32: 347–380.
18.
TapiaM. A visual implementation of a shape grammar system. Environ Plann B1999; 26: 59–73.
19.
StinyG. The algebras of design. Res Eng Des1991; 2: 171–181.
20.
ÇaǧdaşG. A shape grammar: the language of traditional Turkish houses. Environ Plann B1996; 23: 443–464.
21.
TrescakTEstevaMRodriguezI. A shape grammar interpreter for rectilinear forms. CAD Computer Aided Design2012; 44: 657–670.
22.
WutteADuarteJP. Shape grammar as a typology defining tool for ancient Egyptian funerary monuments. Nexus Netw J2021; 23: 319–336. DOI: 10.1007/s00004-020-00543-8.
23.
KnightT. Shapes and other things. Nexus Netw J2015; 17: 963–980.
24.
EloySDuarteJP. A transfformation grammar for housing rehabilitation. Nexus Netw J2011; 13: 49–71.
25.
KrügerMDuarteJPCoutinhoF. Decoding de re aedificatoria: using grammars to trace alberti’s influence on Portuguese classical architecture. Nexus Netw J2011; 13: 171–182.
26.
Piedade FerreiraMCabral de MelloDDuarteJP. The grammar of movement: a step towards a corporeal architecture. Nexus Netw J2011; 13: 131–149.
PaioATurkieniczB. An urban grammar study: a geometric method for generating planimetric proportional and symmetrical systems. Nexus Netw J2011; 13: 151–169.
29.
LeeJHOstwaldMJGuN. A statistical shape grammar approach to analysing and generating design instances of Murcutt’s domestic architecture. Environ Plan B Urban Anal City Sci2021; 48: 929–944.
30.
LambeNRDongreAR. A shape grammar approach to contextual design: a case study of the Pol houses of Ahmedabad, India. Environ Plan B Urban Anal City Sci2019; 46: 845–861.
31.
LeeJHOstwaldMJGuN. A Justified Plan Graph (JPG) grammar approach to identifying spatial design patterns in an architectural style. Environ Plan B Urban Anal City Sci2018; 45: 67–89.
32.
EremÖAbbasoğlu ErmiyagilMS. Adapted design generation for Turkish vernacular housing grammar. Environ Plann Plann Des2016; 43: 893–919.
33.
LeeJHParkHJLimS, et al.A formal approach to the study of the evolution and commonality of patterns. Environ Plann Plann Des2013; 40: 23–42.
34.
GraslT. Transformational palladians. Environ Plann Plann Des2012; 39: 83–95.
35.
SassL. A Palladian construction grammar - design reasoning with shape grammars and rapid prototyping. Environ Plann B2007; 34: 87–106.
36.
ChiouSCKrishnamurtiR. The grammar of taiwanese traditional vernacular dwellings. Environ Plann B1995; 22: 689–720.
37.
ColakogluB. Design by grammar: an interpretation and generation of vernacular hayat houses in contemporary context. Environ Plann Plann Des2005; 32: 141–149.
38.
KnightTW. Shape grammars: six types. Environ Plann B1999; 26: 15–31.
39.
MayallKHallGB. Landscape grammar 1: spatial grammar theory and landscape planning. Environ Plann Plann Des2005; 32: 895–920.
40.
BeirãoJNDuarteJPStouffsR. Creating specific grammars with generic grammars: towards flexible urban design. Nexus Netw J2011; 13: 73–111.
41.
IbrahimMSBridgesAChaseSC, et al.Design grammars as evaluation tools in the first year studio. Electron J Inf Technol Construct2012; 17: 319–332.
42.
El-MahdyD. Learning by doing: integrating shape grammar as a visual coding tool in architectural curricula. Nexus Netw J2022; 24: 701–716.
43.
StinyGGipsJ. Shape grammars and the generative specification of painting and sculpture. Information Processing 71 Proceedings of the IFIP Congress1972; 71: 1460–1465.
44.
StinyGGipsJ. Algorithmic Aesthetics: computer models for criticism and design in the arts. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1978.
45.
FleisherA. grammatical architecture?1992, vol 19, pp. 221–226.
46.
GraslTEconomouA. From shapes to topologies and back: an introduction to a general parametric shape grammar interpreter. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf2018; 32: 208–224.
47.
GraslTEconomouA. From topologies to shapes: parametric shape grammars implemented by graphs. Environ Plann B2013; 40: 905–922.
48.
YueKKrishnamurtiRGroblerF. Computation-friendly shape grammars: detailed by a sub-framework over parametric 2D rectangular shapes. In: Proceedings of the 13th international CAAD futures conference, Sydney, 2009, pp. 757–770.
49.
HoislFSheaK. An interactive, visual approach to developing and applying parametric three-dimensional spatial grammars. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf2011; 25: 333–356.
50.
YueKKrishnamurtiR. A paradigm for interpreting tractable shape grammars. Environ Plann Plann Des2014; 41: 110–137.
51.
JowersIEarlC. Implementation of curved shape grammars. Environ Plann B2011; 38: 616–635.
52.
ChaseSC. A model for user interaction in grammar-based design systems. Autom ConStruct2002; 11: 161–172.
53.
Al-JokhadarAJabiW. Spatial reasoning as a syntactic method for programming socio-spatial parametric grammar for vertical residential buildings. Architect Sci Rev2020; 63: 135–153.
54.
EloyS. The quality of designs by shape grammar systems and architects: a comparative test on refurbishing LISBON’S rabo-de-bacalhau apartments. J Architect Plann Res2017; 34(4): 271–294.
55.
LoTTAydinSSchnabelMA. COLLABORATIVE design with quasigrammars A bottom-up model for the mass-housing projects in kashgar. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on computer- aided architectural design research in asia CAADRIA 2014. Piscataway: IEEE, 2014, pp. 951–952.
56.
BelčičAEloyS. Architecture for community-based ageing—a shape grammar for transforming typical single-family houses into older people’s cohousing in Slovenia. Buildings2023; 13: 453.
EiloutiB. Shape grammars as a reverse engineering method for the morphogenesis of architectural façade design. Frontiers of Architectural Research2019; 8: 191–200.
59.
RiemenschneiderHKrispelUThallerW, et al.Irregular lattices for complex shape grammar facade parsing. In: Proceedings of the IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, Providence, RI, 16 June 2012, pp. 1640–1647.
60.
TeboulOSimonLKoutsourakisP, et al.Segmentation of building facades using procedural shape priors. In: Proceedings of the IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, San Francisco, CA, 13 June 2010, pp. 3105–3112.
61.
HaeglerSWonkaPArisonaSM, et al.Grammar-based encoding of facades. Comput Graph Forum2010; 29: 1479–1487.
62.
DoreCMurphyM. Semi-automatic modelling of building façades with shape grammars using historic building information modelling. Int Arch Photogram Rem Sens Spatial Inf Sci2013; XL-5/W1: 57–64.
63.
MüllerPZengGWonkaP, et al.Image-based procedural modeling of facades. ACM Trans Graph2007; 26: 85.
64.
KamathAV. Making grammars for material and tectonic complexity: an example of a thin-tile vault. Des Stud2020; 69: 100944.
65.
MacLachlanLJowersI. Formalising flexible multi-material surfaces as weighted shapes SIGGRAPH asia 2014 creative shape modeling and design. New York: ACM, 2014. DOI: 10.1145/2669043.2669046.
66.
HuangXWDudekCKSharmanL, et al.From form to content: using shape grammars for image visualization. Proc Int Conf Inf Visual2005; 2005: 439–444.
67.
AshrafiNNazarianSMeiselN, et al.A grammar-based algorithm for toolpath generation: compensating for material deformation in the additive manufacturing of concrete. Addit Manuf; 55. DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2022.102803.
68.
SerraJ. Three color strategies in architectural composition. Color Res Appl2013; 38: 238–250.
69.
GarciaSMenezes LeitãoA. Shape grammars as design tools: an implementation of a multipurpose chair grammar. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf2018; 32: 240–255.
70.
Noel VaaA. The bailey-derek grammar: recording the craft of wire-bending in the trinidad carnival. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press Direct, 2015, vol 51, pp. 111–117.
71.
YueKKrishnamurtiRGroblerF. Estimating the interior layout of buildings using a shape grammar to capture building style. J Comput Civ Eng2012; 26: 113–130.
72.
JowersIHoggDCMcKayA, et al.Shape detection with vision:implementing shape grammars in conceptual design. Springer2009; 388: 539–547.
73.
TrescakTRodriguezIEstevaM. General shape grammar interpreter for intelligent designs generations. In: Proceedings of the 2009 6th international conference on computer Graphics, imaging and visualization: new advances and trends, CGIV2009, Tianjin, China, 11 August 2009, pp. 235–240.
74.
ÇelikT. (2023), “Generative design experiments with artificial intelligence: reinterpretation of shape grammar”, Open House International, Vol. ahead-of-printNo. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/OHI-04-2023-0079
75.
AliLAMustafaFA. Mosque typo-morphological classification for pattern recognition using shape grammar theory and graph-based techniques. Buildings2023; 13: 741.
76.
SantosWHSBrazilEVRaposoA. ShapeGraMM: on the fly procedural generation of massive models for real-time visualization. Comput Graph2023; 116: 239–250.
77.
CalogeroEArnoldD. Generating alternative proposals for the louvre using procedural modeling. Int Arch Photogram Rem Sens Spatial Inf Sci2012; XXXVIII-5/: 185–189.
78.
StinyG. Ice-ray: a note on the generation of Chinese lattice designs. Environ Plann Plann Des1977; 4: 89–98.
79.
KnightTW. The forty-one steps. Environ Plann B1981; 8: 97–114.
80.
HerbertTSandersIMillsG. African shape grammar: a language of linear Ndebele homesteads. Environ Plann B1994; 21: 453–476.
81.
EiloutiBHAl-JokhadarAM. A generative system for mamluk madrasa form-making. Nexus Netw J2007; 9: 7–30.
82.
LinCJGuoJJ. A design supporting system for Kimono pattern preservation. In: Proceedings of the international conference on information visualisation, London, UK, 9 July 2008, pp. 458–461.
83.
AbdulqaderOQIbrahimFBahauddinA. The algorithm processes of generating embellishments in the Baba-Nyonya Shophouses. Adv Sci Lett2017; 23: 6218–6222.
84.
AydinSSchnabelMA. Augmenting kashgar. In: Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on virtual systems and multimedia, VSMM 2014, Hong Kong, 12 December 2014, pp. 12–15.
85.
BattiniCFerrettiUDe AngelisG, et al.Automatic generation of synthetic heritage point clouds: analysis and segmentation based on shape grammar for historical vaults. J Cult Herit2024; 66: 37–47.
86.
MamoliM. A shape grammar for the building-Type definition of the ancient Greek and Roman library and the evaluation of library plans. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf2020; 34: 191–206.
87.
PaioAReisJSantosF, et al.Emerg.cities4all. Towards a shape grammar based computational system tool for generating a sustainable and integrated urban design. Conference: of eCAADe 2011 Conference (Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe): Respecting Fragile Places, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 21 September 2011: 152–158.
88.
DuarteJPBeirãoJNMontenegroN, et al.City induction: a model for formulating, generating, and evaluating urban designs. Communications in Computer and Information Science2012; 242 CCIS: 73–98.
DuarteJPRochaJMSoaresGD. Unveiling the structure of the Marrakech Medina: a shape grammar and an interpreter for generating urban form. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf2007; 21: 317–349.
91.
AlFadalatMAl-AzhariW. An integrating contextual approach using architectural procedural modeling and augmented reality in residential buildings: the case of Amman city. Heliyon2022; 8. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10040.
92.
BrownFEJohnsonJH. An interactive computer model of urban development: the rules governing the morphology of mediaeval London. Environ Plann B1985; 12: 377–400.
93.
JanHKunzeASchmittG. Using shape grammars for master planning. In: Design computing and cognition ’08 - proceedings of the 3rd international conference on design computing and cognition. Berlin: Springer, 2008, pp. 655–673.
94.
PhillipsMG. Framing what we see: the role of ornament in structuring Louis Sullivan’s design logic. Environ Plann B2008; 35: 772–793.
95.
StinyGMitchellWJ. The grammar of paradise: on the generation of Mughul gardens. Environ Plann B1980; 7: 209–226.
96.
LeeJHOstwaldMJGuN. A combined plan graph and massing grammar approach to Frank Lloyd wright’s prairie architecture. Nexus Netw J2017; 19: 279–299.
97.
BuelinckxH. Wren’s language of City church designs: a formal generative classification. Environ Plann B1993; 20: 645–676.
98.
KnightTW. Mughul gardens revisited. Environ Plann B1990; 17: 73–84.
99.
GipsJ. Shape grammars and their uses. Basel: Birkhäuser Basel, 1975. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-0348-5753-6.
100.
StinyG. Pictorial and formal aspects of shape and shape grammars. Basel: Birkhäuser Basel, 1975. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-0348-6879-2.
101.
StinyG. Introduction to shape and shape grammars. Environ Plann B1980; 7: 343–351.
102.
StinyG. Kindergarten grammars: designing with Froebel’s building gifts. Environ Plann B1980; 7: 409–462.
103.
KnightTW. Languages of designs: from known to new. Environ Plann B1981; 8: 213–238.
104.
KnightTW. Transformations of languages of designs: part 1. Environ Plann B1983; 10: 125–128.
105.
KnightTW. Transformations of languages of designs: part 3. Environ Plann B1983; 10: 155–177.
106.
KnightTW. Comparing designs. Environ Plann Plann Des1988; 15: 73–110.
107.
StinyG. What is a design?Environ Plann B1990; 17: 97–103.
108.
StinyG. Useless rules. Environ Plann B1996; 23: 235–237.
109.
EarlCF. Shape boundaries. Environ Plann B1997; 24: 669–687.
110.
KrsticD. Algebras and grammars for shapes and their boundaries. Environ Plann Plann Des2001; 28: 151–162.
111.
KnightT. Computing with ambiguity. Environ Plann Plann Des2003; 30: 165–180.
112.
Al-KazzazDABridgesAH. A framework for adaptation in shape grammars. Des Stud2012; 33: 342–356.
113.
GürsoyBÖzkarM. Visualizing making: shapes, materials, and actions. Des Stud2015; 41: 29–50.
114.
KnightTSassL. Looks count: computing and constructing visually expressive mass customized housing. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf2010; 24: 425–445.
115.
ChiouSCKrishnamurtiR. Example Taiwanese traditional houses. Environ Plann B1996; 23: 191–216.
116.
CagdasG. A shape grammar model for designing row houses. Des Stud1996; 17: 35–51.
117.
YousefniapashaMTeelingCRolloJ, et al.Shape grammar, culture, and generation of vernacular houses (a practice on the villages adjacent to rice fields of Mazandaran, in the north of Iran). Environ Plan B Urban Anal City Sci2019; 48: 94–114.
118.
FlemmingU. More than the sum of parts: the grammar of Queen Anne houses. Environ Plann B1987; 14: 323–350.
119.
DowningFFlemmingU. The bungalows of Buffalo. Environ Plann Plann Des1981; 8: 269–293.
120.
KoningHEizenbergJ. The Language of the prairie: Frank Lloyd wright’s prairie houses. Environ Plann Plann Des1981; 8: 295–323.
121.
GuNBehbahaniPA. Shape grammars: a key generative design algorithm. Handbook of the Mathematics of the Arts and Sciences. 2018; 1–21. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-70658-0_7-1.
122.
StinyGMitchellWJ. The Palladian grammar. Environ Plann B1978; 5: 5–18.
123.
EiloutiBHHamamieh Al ShaarMJ. Shape grammars of traditional Damascene houses. Int J Architect Herit2012; 6: 415–435.
124.
LambeNDongreA. Contextualism : an approach to achieve architectural identity and continuity. International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies(IJIRAS)2016; 3: 33–42.
125.
BeirãoJNDuarteJPStouffsR. Grammars of designs and grammars for designing: grammar-based patterns for urban design. In: Proceedings of the 13th international CAAD futures conference, Sydney, 11 July 2009, pp. 999–1013.
126.
AgarwalMCaganJConstantineKG. Influencing generative design through continuous evaluation: associating costs with the coffeemaker shape grammar. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf1999; 13: 253–275.
127.
KnightTStinyG. Making grammars: from computing with shapes to computing with things. Des Stud2015; 41: 8–28.
128.
KrishnamurtiR. The construction of shapes. Environ Plann B1981; 8: 5–40.
129.
StinyG. Composition counts: a + E = ae. Environ Plann B1987; 14: 167–182.
130.
ChaseSC. Shapes and shape grammars: from mathematical model to computer implementation. Environ Plann B1989; 16: 215–242.
