Working link to your Revit cloud model in Forma Data Management.
https://acc.autodesk.com/docs/files/projects/1a04a1ba-5c7b-4227-9d7f-06b66256ebf9?folderUrn=urn%3Aadsk.wipprod%3Afs.folder%3Aco.kIXddjbwRg6g7gi41jqJCg&entityId=urn%3Aadsk.wipprod%3Adm.lineage%3ADetGnZv8SKWJGPFd0Yfe7Q&viewModel=detail&moduleId=folders
Working link to your Individual Forma Board
Module4 - Fall 26 - CEE 120A_220A - Adelekan - Autodesk Forma Board
DF sheet set at D size, 30 by 42 inches, six sheets. Delete any blank sheets.
Screenshot of your Insight result alongside your Week 3 Forma result.
Design memo of 300 to 400 words: what survived the handoff, what you rebuilt, what assembly choices you made and why, and where Revit and Forma disagreed.
What survived the handoff: My windows, walls, floor plan, elevator shaft and one of my stairs survived the handoff as they were built in Revit exactly as I designed. I had to rebuild on set of walls as it had double railings and the stairs were not connected across some levels. Additionally, I had to build a shaft for the mechanical room.
For the assembly of the walls, I had to delete the bad stairs and reassemble the stairs according to the shaft space available. I had to do this for each level as Revit was not letting me connect levels. I left the stairs with no wall to ensure that users had enough corridor space. I made two new wall types and a green floor to meet the R-19 requirement to prevent unnecessary heat loss throughout the building. The first wall was brick with insulation and air filling inside to reduce heat flow. This wall had an R value of 19. The second wall was a wood wall which is more common in California due to mild weathers. This wall composition contained thicker insulation, sheathing and an air gap to better reduce heat loss through the building’s walls. The R value was 43.5.
The green floor was designed to have green grass, wood to hold the grass in, some waterproof insulation and some concrete below the surface to hold everything together. It had an R value of 63.
My Revit Carbon Footprint is much lower than the Forma carbon analysis from week 3. This is likeley because on Revit I have designed walls with specific materials and thickness rather than the mostly generic material types on Forma. This could allow for the specific carbon footprint to be derived. Additionally, it could be that better materials are being used in Revit to help reduce the heat flow rate which could reduce the energy use which would help reduce the building’s operational emissions. Also, before after moving to Revit, I had to reshape my building massing whilst completing the tasks, so it could be that less floor area was used in the Revit model (after constant edits) so the carbon emissions are lower. Lastly, Forma and Revit could be using different databases to calculate their emission levels which could lead to different answers.