Introduction
In this assignment, I adapted the original dynamo chart logic created around the Revit twisting rectangular mass model in Module 5 as seen in the below Figure.
Evaluation Metrics
The evaluation metrics that I chose to explore in this assignment are centred around evaluating the respective building costs based on building floor and surface areas to account for other economic considerations such as premiums for vertical landscaping, photovoltaic installation on roofs and floor segregations. An overview of the overall logic chart in dynamo and various user-defined inputs can be found in the following figures.
To develop this logic, I elected to reuse the original Module 5 logics used to select the building form and flex parameters (Twisting Rectangular Mass & Mass Height). For my first customization of evaluation parameter, I explored amending the GFA cost logic created in the examples by including a listcount function to count the total number of floors and applying a user-defined premium factor to half of the total floor counts to mirror a scenario in which a developer intends to dedicate half of all floors for premium commercial space.
For my second customization, I created a new custom node to reflect the potential development costs of installing PV panels on the rooftop. This was achieved by using the panelize surfaces custom node, and using the outputs from this function to select roof surfaces only. Next, I created a new custom node - PV Cost to determine the total PV cost by multiplying the total roof surface area (using the surface function) by the projected PV installation cost (user-defined).
I elected to include a third custom node - Vertical Landscaping to explore the results of using the total wall surface areas and determining the projected costs of installing vertical landscaping features across the facades. This utilized the same panelize surface node, but using the wall Surface outputs instead. The Vertical Green Custom node was then created to determine the total vertical landscaping cost by multiplying the total selected wall surface area (using the surface function) by the projected vertical landscaping costs (user-defined).
Last but not least, I explored including a non-commercial cost indicator through the directness score (for comparison). The logics for these were straightforward and kept similar to the example explanations.
Reporting Evaluation Parameters for Test Cases
To integrate all the various evaluation parameters, I created an evaluation custom node to account for the new inputs for each evaluation test parameter as well as the resulting outputs. The amended custom node logic can be found in the following:
Finally, the outputs and results were compiled in excel using the Export to Excel function introduced in Module 5.
Reflections & Observations
This exercise highlighted the potential for differing evaluation metrics to be tested simultaneously across different input parameters in parametric design. For instance, while the PV installation costs reflected in my current logic set-up is the same for all test cases (as the current mass keeps the roof surface area constant), this could be easily adjusted to observe cost differentials if other inputs parameters are flexed (i.e. roof width inputs). The cost inputs and determination could also be updated easily to account for new commercial developments (i.e. inflation, market benchmarks). In addition, the ability to include non-economic indicators like directness scores or solar analyses can also be useful in providing a holistic assessment of different evaluation metrics across different design test cases parametrically.