Part I
Initial tests - adjusting the degree of rotation of the top profile (between 60 degrees and 180 degrees, in 20 degree increments). This was the twisting triangles example form that was given to us. The following inputs were kept the same:
- top height - 500ft
- top radius - 60ft
- mid rotation - 30 degrees
- mid height - 200ft
- base rotation - 0 degrees
- base radius - 80ft
The following single input was varied:
- top rotation: 60 degrees - 180 degrees.
Results:
What’s interesting is that GFA is optimized at a rotation of 100 degrees, rather than the least amount of rotation.
Top: 180 Degrees. GFA: 124,878 sqft
Top: 120 degrees. GFA: 135,286 sqft - actually
Top Rotation: 60 degrees, GFA: 132,965 sqft which makes sense, less twisting =More floor area
Part II
This was my own mass I made, it is a circle, square, and triangle lofted. I liked this form because revit did some interesting things as it lofted a circle (one side) to a square (four) and back to a triangle (three). Even the most basic and simple geometries when lofted can create more complex forms.
The family parameters I gave it were the mid height (’Mid Height’) and top height (’Top Height’), nothing too fancy. I also included in the family parameter the radius of the circle (’Bottom Profile’), one side of the middle square (’Mid Profile’) and the radius of the circumscribed equilateral triangle (’Top Profile’). The triangle profile from the class profile folder came with a rotation value as well, but for the purpose of this exercise I kept it as 0 degrees as I wasn’t going to change it. There were some parameters I should have locked; for example, making the bottom radius a certain amount smaller than the middle square length made my building buggy.
For this iteration cycle, I kept these parameters as is:
- Bottom Profile (Radius) - 150ft
- Top Profile (Radius of circle around equilateral triangle) - 75ft
- Mid Height - 250 ft
- Top Height - 550 ft
The single input I changed was the length of the middle square profile. The length of the middle square ranged from 120ft to 240ft, in 20ft increments. This ensured that the maximum depth in plan view did not exceed the site area, as well as stay within appropriate heights (though there is more room to play around with height here).
Mid Profile: 120 ft. GFA: 1,156,279 sqft; GSA: 383,788 sqft
I edited the builingform.evaluatesingleinput node that was give to us to also return gross volume.
The last one reminded me of the Gherkin in london with a similar bulbous form (as well as its own sustainability challenges). It was also the only one that met the 2.5 million sqft guidance; I will likely have to add more floors to future iterations to meet the sqft requirements.
Points to ponder -
The advantage of exporting things to excel is useful so you don’t have to go through each iteration by hand. It allows you to go through many iterations to identify the optimal design choice.
For example, for this exercise I iterated through one variable 6 times; easy enough to do by hand. However, if I’m testing multiple variables and a greater number of variables, it would be best to systematically keep track of what input and what combination of input has the greatest impact on design . Ultimately, it will give you the most / best data to inform your design choices.