Published: 30 January 2018| Version 2 | DOI: 10.17632/52bwtthkt7.2
Guy Austern


The data describes the findings from a systematic review conducted on the subject of Rationalization and Digital Fabrication between the years 2006-2016. The review process is comprised of three main stages: 1. Searching for literature and constructing the initial Database. As an initial database for this review, we searched in the Scopus database for items containing the words ‘fabrication’, ‘manufacturing’ or ‘rationalization’ or fractions thereof in their title, abstract or keywords. To focus on papers with a good chance at being relevant to subject, the search was limited to the three leading academic journals in the field (Architectural Science Review-ASR, Automation in Construction-AiC, International Journal of Architectural Computing-IJAC); a popular curated journal specializing in digital architecture (Architectural Design); Additionally, we searched in the proceedings of four leading conferences on the subjects of fabrication, computer graphics, architectural geometry and digital architecture in general (Fabricate, SIGGRAPH, Advances in Architectural Geometry-AAG and ACADIA). The search resulted in 501 papers that contained these terms, comprising the initial database for this review. During the different review stages, we removed 45 of these papers from the database, due to being completely irrelevant or because they described projects which appeared in other papers included in the review. 2. Screening of the initial list of papers (abstract review). During the screening stage, we collected data about the following categories: Topic, authorship, fabrication technology, main material, and scale from all the papers in the database. 3. Data extraction from the screened papers (full-text review). In this stage of the review, we chose papers according to their topics: design and construction of digitally fabricated projects or general rationalization methods. Both categories were analyzed in respect to the rationalization strategy used and the type of constraints targeted. In the projects category, we also retrieved data regarding who conducted the rationalization and when it was conducted. In the rationalization category, we cataloged parameters regarding the type of interface suggested, and the geometric properties rationalized.



Technion Israel Institute of Technology Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning


Architecture, Computer-Aided Design, Systematic Review