Please enter the following info in the fields above:
- Your Name as the Card title
- The link to your Module 5 folder in our Autodesk Construction Cloud project
Please also type the first few letters of your first name into the Link to Student field, then hover over your name from the list of matching records and click the blue plus sign to link this entry to your Design Journal.
Then, share your Design Journal entry here including:
- For 3 or More Units: Creating Forms with Dynamo or Grasshopper Geometry
- Images/screenshots showing two variations of the input parameters for your new building form created with Dynamo or grasshopper
- A brief description of your design outlining the parameters that can be used to flex and dynamically change your building form
- Your answers to the Points to Ponder questions for each stage of the assignment that you completed.
Stage 1: Creating Forms with Conceptual Masses
The above images show my geometries from parts 1 and 2 for two different values of the top height. For part 1, I used the rounded tapered triangular tower form that we were given, so we can flex the radius of the base, as well as the rotations and the overall height. For part 2, I built a tower from a trapezoidal base and top profile with a diamond profile connecting them. I allowed for the top height, mid height, mid rotation, top width and depth, mid width and depth, and base width and depth to be parametrically flexed as needed to achieve the desired floor surface area.
Point to Ponder: I think the benefit of exporting directly to Excel is that it overwrites the data in an easily accessible file that I can then easily edit to make the formatting nice and easy to understand.
Stage 2: Creating Forms with Dynamo
For this stage, I wanted to flex the top height and the base radius as I felt they had really big impacts on the gross floor areas and also affected my tower visually. I worked backwards in logic, such that I set the max alternative as the max value allowed for our constraints and then decided the minimum I wanted to test after doing some iterations. I wanted to get interesting alternate data that was all within scope and would come to aesthetic choice. We are able to set constants to flex the geometry through the mid height and rotation, top radius, and number of sides of the polygons forming the tower as profiles to loft.
Point to Ponder: The top height seemed to be the input value that changed both the aesthetic and metric value of my tower greatly. As it increased, the floor surface area also increased, and because it stretched out, it made the tower skinnier and more modern looking in my opinion, also emphasizing the rotation more.
Stage 3: Summarizing the Testing Results
For stage 3, I added the final parameter as a column to the previously made cvs output, then found the minimum and maximum values of that parameter for all valid pairs of input flexed (meaning within the floor surface area requirements only) and highlighted them green and yellow, respectively.
Point to Ponder: I believe the parameters that made the maximum floor area to surface area should be recommended, as it stays well under the maximum height and depth for our building plan while maximizing space efficiency relative to how it looks from the outside (my interpretation of the added metric).