Aesthetic Design Using Multi-Objective

Evolutionary Algorithms

António Gaspar-Cunha1, Dirk Loyens2,3 , and Ferrie van Hattum1

1
Institute of Polymer and Composites/I3N, University of Minho, Campus de
Azurém, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal
[email protected], [email protected]
http://www.dep.uminho.pt/agc/
2
School of Architecture, University of Minho, Campus de Azurém, 4800-058
Guimarães, Portugal
3
ESAD Escola Superior de Artes e Design, Avenida Calouste Gulbenkian, 4460-268
Senhora da Hora, Matosinhos, Portugal
[email protected]

Abstract. The use of computational methodologies for the optimiza-

tion of aesthetic parameters is not frequent mainly due to the fact that
these parameters are not quantifiable and are subjective. In this work an
interactive methodology based on the use of multi-objective optimization
algorithms is proposed. This strategy associates the results of different
optimization runs considering the existent quantifiable objectives and
different sets of boundary conditions concerning the decision variables,
as defined by an expert decision maker. The associated results will serve
as initial population of solutions for a final optimization run. The idea
is that a more global picture of potential ”good” solutions can be found.
At the end this will facilitate the work of the expert decision maker since
more solutions are available. The method was applied to a case study and
the preliminary results obtained showed the potentially of the strategy
adopted.

Keywords: aesthetic design, multi-objective evolutionary algorithms.

1 Introduction
Digital design culture and new paradigms in digital design thinking have a great
impact on the design, development and realization of components and objects.
Projects frequently embody a trade-off between multiple and interdependent
requirements such as performance-related aspects, form freedom and complexity
of the desired architectural expressions.
Current design methods, though already largely involving digital tools and
processes, are not yet fully suited to dynamically optimize the design within
its multiple boundary conditions. At the same time, conventional materials and
technologies compromise the realization of the optimized design and its underly-
ing concepts. Here, polymer and composite materials, in combination with their

R.H.C. Takahashi et al. (Eds.): EMO 2011, LNCS 6576, pp. 374–388, 2011.

c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011
 Aesthetic Design Using MOEAs 375

largely automated manufacturing methods, are a powerful group of materials to

overcome this dilemma due to their inherent properties, such as aesthetically
pleasing, lightness, ability to mould complex shapes, ease of fabrication and
integration of parts.
In this research a computational method has been developed that can it-
eratively optimize a design towards its functional requirements using available
design, simulation and user-interfacing tools. The method has been applied to
the optimization of a ’generic’ roof structure towards daylight conditions while
minimizing area and thus weight and materials used. Multi-Objective Evolution-
ary Algorithms (MOEA) in combination with a decision making methodology
have been used, together with critical Decision Maker (DM) interaction. The
result indicates the usefulness of this model and the developed techniques in the
early stage of the design process, leading to better design solutions.
This text is organized as follows: in section 2 the state-of-the-art concerning
digital design methodology and the practical problem to be solved are presented;
the problem characteristics as well the optimization methodology adopted are
described in detail in section 3; in section 4 the methodology proposed is applied
to an example and in section 5 the conclusions are stated.

2 Digital Design Method

2.1 State of the Art
Computers have been used in the design process for over fifty years. Initially the
use of computers was limited to drawing, representation, basic structural analysis
or construction planning. Eventually performance analysis was executed as an
afterthought, but always as part of an essentially paper-based design process [1].
It was not until the moment when design moved away from the conventional
logic of representation and instead started interacting with the process of form
generation itself, which we can speak of a new paradigm in the field of digital
design [2]. Since then digital design has evolved into a new and unique form of
design.
The increasing integration of sophisticated and interactive digital design me-
dia throughout the complete design process, from early concept development
until iterative testing and fabrication, has already provoked the emerging of
new ways of design making and new ways of design thinking [3,4]. These con-
cepts are starting to be the subject of research in the field of architecture. The
concept of adaptation has been used to guide research towards the application
of evolution-based generative design systems to shape architectural forms [5].
Other research has evolved in the development of specific software for methods
combining structural grammars, performance metrics, structural analysis and
stochastic optimization [6].
A compound model of digital design has been proposed as a future class of
paradigmatic digital design [2]. These compound models are based on the inte-
gration of form finding, form generation, evaluation and performance processes.
376 A. Gaspar-Cunha, D. Loyens, and F. van Hattum

The development of processes or methods that aim to create new collaborative

relationships between designer and computer, based on the idea of continuous
feedback, are appointed as desired future research topics, though this research
area is largely still in its infancy [6,7].
Although eminent architectural objects are today present, that have only
been possible through the use of digital tools, the design processes used do
not completely and interactively optimise at an early design stage [8]. At the
same time, realisation has been frequently limited to the use of more traditional
construction materials.
A desired design method would go beyond this [8]. The method should adopt
processes that allow for dynamical multi-objective design optimization, inte-
grated with - but not inherently limited to a sub-set of - available, both ’off-the-
shelf’ and novel, material solutions. In construction process composite materials
can play an important role, as they are known for their ability to combine the
moulding of complex forms with varying, tailorable ranges of outstanding prop-
erties either aesthetic or structural, with a relative ease-of-processing and a large
level of functional integration [9]. Due to these characteristics, they have been
a favorite material in design prototyping and final object manufacture, offering
possibilities unable to be embodied in other materials. Furthermore, their fabri-
cation can be highly automated, thus allowing for a high level integration with
the desired digital design environment [10].

2.2 Experimental
The current research project explores new digital paradigms in a project devel-
opment process within a framework of design as information processing rather
than simple form finding. The project explores new relationships between the
designer-as-toolmaker, information, process and the object. In this way the
potential distinctive character of digital design thinking will be explored.
A new method is developed and tested, allowing integrating of complex quan-
titative and qualitative requirements at an early stage in the design process. This
is achieved by combining multiple digital performance simulation tools with al-
gorithms with generative capabilities, acting in the fuzzy front end of conceptual
development. In this way, the design process is quicker and with more iterations,
allowing complex functional and performance requirement integration and pos-
ing almost no limit to the freedom and complexity of forms and components
used. As a first step, the method is applied to the fields of design, engineering
and architecture, demonstrating that the existing design computing technologies,
available and readily used in fields of architecture and composite technology, can
open new territories for conceptual exploration.
For this purpose a generic roof structure geometry, represented by a single
surface, was taken as a starting point (see Figure 1). This roof structure is rep-
resented by a single Non-Uniform Rational Basis Spline (NURBS) surface [11].
This method allows for a precise mathematical representation of a free form
 Aesthetic Design Using MOEAs 377

surface and for precise control by manipulating the control points of the surface.
The control points determine the shape of the curve and a single control point
only influences those intervals where it is active. This allows for the changing
of one part of a surface while keeping other parts equal. The manipulation of
control points is used in the everyday meaning of the word ’point’, a location in
3D space defined by its coordinates.
In the present study a set of 20 control points were defined, allowing the
virtually unlimited adaptation of the surface geometry. Based on the set of spatial
coordinates of the control points, the surface is built in a general 3D design
software [12]. The area is calculated and the surface exported to a building
analysis software [13] for subsequent numerical analysis, in this case the average
daylight factor under the structure, as an indication of the light functionality of
the structure. The results (Area, Daylight) are saved for subsequent use by the
optimization routine, as described in the subsequent section.
The resulting optimized design combines both quantitative and qualitative
evaluation of the design’s performance, leading the exploration of a wider range
of design solutions at an early stage in the concept phase. The best performing
concept can then be used as the starting point for subsequent detailed design.
The proposed model thus results in the streamlining of the design and devel-
opment processes of architectural objects with a high degree of form freedom
and system complexity. Applying this approach, architects and designers can
conceive interactively, test the consequences of actions almost immediately, and
explore different ways of solution refinements that are crucial in design and
architecture.

Fig. 1. Studied roof structure were the geometry is defined by the NURBS surface
methodology (the limits for the coordinates of the control points are 5 meters)
378 A. Gaspar-Cunha, D. Loyens, and F. van Hattum

3 Multi-objective Optimization

3.1 Problem Characteristics

As mentioned above the problem to be solved has three objectives to be ac-
complished, the minimization of both Area and Daylight and the aesthetics
design. The minimization of the structure Area, a measure of the effective use
of material of ’lightness’ of the structure, and the minimization of the Daylight
under the structure, a measure of the effective ’functionality’ of the structure,
are two quantifiable objectives. Thus, they can be easily put up when using
any MOEA to optimize the system. A trade-off between these objectives can
be evidenced trough the generation of the Pareto front after optimization. The
difficulty here concerns only with the interfaces between the software’s used, i.e.,
the optimization routine (developed in house) and the 3D design and building
analysis software (commercial softwares) used to calculate the objective values.
Since these commercial software’s do not run in background a specific interface
approach based on Windows operating system scripts was implemented. This
script simulates the use of the programs used.
Since the third objective is not quantifiable and, additionally is very subjec-
tive, a different strategy was adopted which takes into account the preferences
of the DM involved. This can be seen as an iterative process: i) first the MOEA
generates the Pareto fronts using the Area and Daylight objectives; ii) then, the
DM selects the preferred regions taking into account aesthetics; iii) this informa-
tion is inserted on the MOEA and new optimization is carried out. The process
is repeated until a satisfactory solution is found by the DM.
Therefore, the resolution of this type of problems involves the articulation
of preferences of a DM. In the present case the selection made by the DM,
concerning one or more regions of the Pareto front, implies the definition of a
measure of the relative importance of the objectives considered (in the present
case two objectives exist, Area and Daylight). This can be better illustrated with
the example of Figure 2. In region 1 the Area has more importance, since these
solutions have better value for the Area, while in region 2 the Daylight is the
most important objective (both objectives are to be minimized).
A traditional way to deal with multi-objectives consists in using an aggre-
gation function, such as the weighted sum, were the relative importance of the
various objectives are taking into account trough the definition of weights [14].
In general terms three different classes of multi-objective preference methods can
be identified, depending on how the search and decision processes are intercon-
nected, a priori, a posteriori and iterative methods [15,16]. In a priori methods,
the DM must specify her or his preferences, expectations and/or options before
the optimization process takes place. The preferences are expressed in terms
of an aggregating function which combines individual criterion values into a
single utility value. In the case of a posteriori method, after the generation of
the Pareto optimal set, the DM selects the most preferred among the alternatives
 Aesthetic Design Using MOEAs 379

Fig. 2. Trade-off between Area and Daylight

taking into account his or her own preferences. Finally, in interactive methods
the Decision making and the optimization processes occur at interleaved steps.
At each step, partial preference information is supplied by the DM to the opti-
mizer, which, in turn, generates better alternatives according to the information
received.
Therefore, in the iterative methodology proposed different preferences meth-
ods are used (see Figure 3). At the beginning the MOEA runs without con-
sidering any preference and considering only the quantifiable objectives. After
the Pareto front is generated, the DM selects the preferred region based on
aesthetics parameters. The major difficulty consists in incorporating the infor-
mation concerning the regions selected on the MOEA. The idea is to use a priori
decision making methodology proposed before, which is based on the use of
stress functions [17]. In this method the incorporation of preferences is made
through the definition of a set of weights quantifying the relative importance
of the objectives. The value calculated for the stress function depend on the
objective function itself as well of the weight chosen for this objective. The ex-
tension of the Pareto front found depend on the definition by the user of an
algorithm parameter. For more details the reader is referred to [17]. Starting
from a population of solutions resulting from the previous optimization run
the algorithm searches for solutions in the region corresponding to the weights
chosen. However, care must be taken since the usability of interactive methods
depends strongly on the extent to which the parameter values set by the DM as
an expression of his or her preferences lead to solutions corresponding to those
preferences.
Another important issue concerns the huge search space, which is a charac-
teristic of this type of design problems (as will be seen on the problem tested
below). In this case some of the solutions found, which are valid when calculat-
ing the Area and Light objectives, have some risk of not being valid concerning
380 A. Gaspar-Cunha, D. Loyens, and F. van Hattum

WƌŽďůĞŵ
ŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐ

DK

Dϭ
DϮ
^ĞƚŽĨ
tĞŝŐŚƚƐ
^ĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƉƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶƐ

EŽ
'ŽŽĚ
^ŽůƵƚŝŽŶ;ƐͿ͍

zĞƐ

E

Fig. 3. Combination of a posteriori and iterative methods to select solutions in multi-

objective problems involving aesthetic design variables

other questions such as possibility of fabrication. This aspect will not be deal in
this phase of the work. However, a decision must be taken about the boundary
conditions imposed to the decision variables. If the range of variation allowed is
high the Pareto front obtained will have, certainly, solutions with very different
aesthetics. If the range of variation is very restrictive, the possibility of losing
some important designs (solutions) is high.

4 Optimization Strategy

In this section the strategy proposed to deal with the problems identified above,
i.e., multiple objectives, non-quantifiable objectives and size of the search space,
will be described in detail. The resolution of this type of problems can be made
using three different situations:

Situation 1: The simplest situation consists in using the optimization algorithm

(MOEA) without interacting with the DM (i.e., only one time). The DM defines
the decision variables to be optimized and their range of variation and the ob-
jectives to be considered. Then, after running the MOEA, the DM selects the
solutions from the pool of non-dominated solutions obtained using, for example,
aesthetics criteria. In this case the DM must know very well the characteristics of
the problem to be solved, since it is necessary to define beforehand the boundary
conditions imposed to the design variables.
 Aesthetic Design Using MOEAs 381

ĂƐĞϭ ͙ ĂƐĞŶ

KƉƚŝŵŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ KƉƚŝŵŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ KƉƚŝŵŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ

EŽŶͲĚŽŵŝŶĂƚĞĚ EŽŶͲĚŽŵŝŶĂƚĞĚ EŽŶͲĚŽŵŝŶĂƚĞĚ

ƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶƐʹ ƐĞƚϭ ƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶƐͲ ƐĞƚ͙ ƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶƐʹ ƐĞƚŶ

WŽŽůŽĨŶŽŶͲĚŽŵŝŶĂƚĞĚƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶƐ
;ŝŶŝƚŝĂůƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶͿ

KƉƚŝŵŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ

&ŝŶĂůƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶƐ
Fig. 4. Global structure of the optimization strategy adopted

Situation 2: This situation is illustrated in Figure 3. In this case an iterative

process is pursued. In each interaction, new information (e.e., a set of weights)
as provided by the DM, is taken into account. However, as in previous situation,
the DM has to define the decision variables to be optimized and their range of
variation and the objectives to be considered. Thus, the results produced will be
certainly strongly dependent on the initial choice made by the DM.

Situation 3: This situation is illustrated in Figure 4. It starts by the definition

of n different cases, each one characterized by different set of restrictions (i.e.,
boundary conditions) imposed by the DM to the decision variables. Then, each
one of these cases is optimized independently. At the end of this initial opti-
mization step, the best solutions selected from all n cases will be used to form
a new population of solutions. This population will serve as initial population
for the last optimization process. The optimization step in this case can be per-
formed either using a simple MOEA optimization (as in situation 1) or using
an iterative process (as in situation 2). It is expected that the non-dominated
solutions found have characteristics taken from the different cases (i.e., different
set of restrictions imposed).
382 A. Gaspar-Cunha, D. Loyens, and F. van Hattum

5 Example of Application
5.1 Problem to Solve
Different geometrical boundary conditions are input by the user, in order to ex-
plore different conceptual solutions. In the present work, 3 different geometrical
boundary conditions (i.e., 3 different cases as represented in Figure 4) were used,
each one leading to a different optimized subset of solutions. The surface was
defined by 20 control points and defined by the NURBS method (see Figure 1).
The natural light levels are calculated in Ecotect [13] over a horizontal analysis
grid at ground level. The grid was formatted with a dimension of 5x5 meters
and was set to a 5x6 matrix allowing for calculation over all 30 visible nodes.
Calculations of natural light levels are neither time nor date dependant, so no
parameters were specified and the default values of the software were used.
In case 1, the less restrictive, the coordinates of the 20 control points rep-
resented in 1 (corresponding to 60 decision variables, the 3D coordinates of
the control points) are allowed to vary between 0.5 and 5 meters. In case 2
the control points corresponding to the corners of the structure are fixed, i.e.,
points P1(0,0,0), P4(5,0,0), P17(0,5,0) and P20(5,5,0). In this case 48 deci-
sion variables are to be optimized. Finally, in the most restrictive case (case
3), the coordinates of the control points corresponding to the corners points
as well to the border points are fixed, i.e., points P1(0,0,0), P2(1.6,0,0.5),
P3(0.338,0,0.5), P4(5,0,0), P8(5,0.65,0.18), P13(0,0.335,0.18), P16(5,0.335,0.18),
P17(0,5,0), P18(1.6,5.0,0.5), P19(0.338,5,0.5) and P20(5,5,0). This corresponds
to 24 decision variables. In cases 2 and 3 the coordinates of the remaining control
points are allowed to range in the interval [0.5, 5] meters (as in case 1).
After this process the user is presented with the geometrical solutions and
their performance, and allowed to bias the subsequent optimization step to-
wards his/her preference (assumed to be based on the aesthetics of the solutions
provided). The solutions selected are used as initial population for the final op-
timization. In this case no restriction to the decision variables are imposed, thus
60 decision variables are considered. They are allowed to range in the interval [0,
5] meters, the aim being to cover all possible solutions generated in the previous
optimization cases.
The MOEA adopted in this work is the Reduced Pareto Set Genetic Algo-
rithm (RPSGA) proposed before by one of the authors [18,19]. The values of
the parameters inside the RPSGA are the best values as described in [19]. The
main and elitist populations had 100 and 200 individuals, respectively; a roulette
wheel selection strategy was adopted; a crossover probability of 0.8, a mutation
probability of 0.05, a number of ranks of 30 and limits of indifference of the clus-
tering technique of 0.01 were chosen. In all cases the algorithm ran only during
10 generations due to the computation time required by the modeling software.

5.2 Optimization Results

Figures 5 to 7 shows the initial population and the non-dominated solutions of
the 10th generation, as well 3 different optimized designs of the roof structure, for
 Aesthetic Design Using MOEAs 383

Fig. 5. Pareto frontier for case 1

Fig. 6. Pareto frontier for case 2

384 A. Gaspar-Cunha, D. Loyens, and F. van Hattum

Fig. 7. Pareto frontier for case 3

Fig. 8. Initial population for final optimization (non-dominated solutions of cases

1 to 3)

cases 1 to 3, respectively. As can be seen the algorithm is able to evolve during the
10 generations and the Pareto frontier obtained in each case is well distributed.
As expected, the roof structures obtained in case 1 are very random, while in
the other two cases the structures obtained are coherent with the boundary
conditions defined. In case 2 the corners are well defined and in case 3 this is
also true for the four sides of the structure.
From the Pareto solutions of these three cases a new Pareto front was defined
as illustrated in Figure 8. This set of solutions was the initial population of
 Aesthetic Design Using MOEAs 385

Fig. 9. Global optimization: initial population and non-dominated solutions after 10

generations

Fig. 10. Optimization considering a weight vector of (0.5; 0.5) and as initial population
the population resulting from previous run (Figure 9)
386 A. Gaspar-Cunha, D. Loyens, and F. van Hattum

the last optimization process, as identified in global strategy adopted in this

work (Figure 4). It is interesting to note that the Pareto solutions of the three
previous runs were able to define almost a continuous line. As can be observed in
the optimization results presented in Figure 9 the MOEA was able to fill some of
the gaps between the solutions of the initial population and some improvements
are obtained. As expected, the new non-dominated solutions are able to cover
all type of geometries obtained in the first three runs. Now the DM has the
starting point for selecting the preferred geometries having a very good idea of
their performance in terms of the two quantifiable objectives defined initially.
This is done in Figure 10 where a set of weights of (0.5, 0.5) was selected by
the DM, assuming that he/she ”likes” the designs present in the center of the
Pareto front (Figure 9). The decision making methodology based on the stress
function is applied using as initial population the population found before. This
method was able to obtain much better solutions than the previous ones and,
simultaneously, converge for the preferred region of the Pareto front. At this
point the DM can continues the process by selecting a new set of weights and/or
by imposing additional restriction on the size of the portion of the Pareto front
to be obtained.
Finally, it is important to note that in the generic roof structure two “sky-
lights” were designed. Those “skylights”, besides providing more light under the
structure, are a fundamental design characteristic of this object, and contribute
to the aesthetic perception of the geometry. But formal characteristics of a sur-
face can change dramatically under the manipulation of the control points. As
a result many of the intermediate solutions, although performing much better
on the quantitative evaluation criteria, will not classify as aesthetically pleasing
and will therefore be discarded or excluded by the DM from the next pool of
solutions.

6 Conclusions

Design is about decision making and requires judgment and trade-offs based
on the best available information. Therefore the role of optimization in design
is to provide the designer with quantitative and qualitative information. This
information is a way for increasing the designers understanding of the design
problem and the nature of good solutions.
Design decisions made in the early stages of the design process have a higher
effect on the final performance and outcome compared to decisions taken at
later stages of the design process. Therefore the strategies which are followed
in the beginning of a design project and the decisions made during those early
stages are most important. Generative systems are an essential part of the future
development of performative architectural systems where evolutionary principals
are applied in the initial stages of the design process with the intent to automate
explorative research. The outcome of those processes is expected to be surprising
and inspiring.
 Aesthetic Design Using MOEAs 387

This study has introduced the use of a MOEA in the conceptual phase of
the design process. The applied strategy for the use of a MOEA allowed for
the DM to iteratively control the outcome and steer the process to a personal
aesthetical solution. The DM can rely less on intuition to solve complicated
and conflicting design requirements and concentrate efforts on innovative and
aesthetical pleasing results.
The next step in this research is to demonstrate the applied design method and
this specific MOEA for the design of an architectural object which can be tested
and validated in the real physical world. In addition the method could be further
developed and prepared for general use by less computer literate architects and
designers for deployment in real world design processes.

Acknowledgements. One of the authors acknowledges the financial support

received by the Portuguese Science Foundation under grant SFRH/BD/44600/
2008.

References

1. Reffat, R.M.: Computing in architectural design: reflections and an approach to

new generations of CAAD. The Journal of Information Technology in Construc-
tion 11, 655–668 (2006)
2. Oxman, R.: Theory and design in the first digital age. Design Studies 27, 229–265
(2006)
3. Kolarevic, B.: Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing. Spon
Press, New York (2003)
4. Liu, Y.-T., Lim, C.-K.: New tectonics: a preliminary framework involving classic
and digital thinking. Design Studies 27, 267–307 (2006)
5. Caldas, L.G.: An evolution-based generative design system : using adaptation to
shape architectural form. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Au-
gust 23, 2005)
6. Shea, K., Aish, R., Gourtovaia, M.: Towards integrated performance-driven gener-
ative design tools. Automation in Construction 14, 253–264 (2005)
7. Kilian, A.: Design exploration through bidirectional modelling of constraints. PhD
Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (August 25, 2006)
8. Kolarevic, B., Malkawi, A.M.: Performative Architecture: Beyond Instrumentality.
Spon Press, London (2005)
9. van Hinte, E., Beukers, A.: Lightness: The Inevitable Renaissance of Minimum
Energy Structures, 3rd edn., Uitgeverij, Rotterdam (1998)
10. Sass, L., Oxman, R.: Materializing design: the implications of rapid prototyping in
digital design. Design Studies 27, 325–355 (2006)
11. Rogers, D.F.: An Introduction to NURBS with Historical Perspective. Morgan
Kaufmann, London (2001)
12. Robert McNeel & Associates, www.rhino3d.com (accessed in 2010)
13. Autodesk - Ecotect, www.autodesk.com/ecotect (accessed in 2010)
14. Deb, K.: Multi-objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms. Wiley,
Chichester (2001)
388 A. Gaspar-Cunha, D. Loyens, and F. van Hattum

15. Miettinen, K.M.: Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization. Kluwer, Boston (1999)

16. Hwang, C.L., Masud, A.S.: Multiple Objective Decision Making - Methods and
Applications. Springer, Berlin (1979)
17. Ferreira, J.C., Fonseca, C.M., Gaspar-Cunha, A.: Assessing the quality of the re-
lation between scalarizing function parameters and solutions in multiobjective op-
timization. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE CEC 2009),
Trondheim, Norway (2009)
18. Gaspar-Cunha, A.: Modeling and Optimization of Single Screw Extrusion. PhD
Thesis, University of Minho, Portugal (2000)
19. Gaspar-Cunha, A., Covas, J.A.: RPSGAe-A Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm
with Elitism: Application to Polymer Extrusion. In: Metaheuristics for Multi-
objective Optimisation. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems.
Springer, Heidelberg (2004)