Journal Entry For
Module 6 - Evaluate Your Alternatives
Link to Student
- For 2 or More Units: Create Two New Evaluator Nodes
- Images showing the node logic in your new evaluator nodes
- Spatial Efficiency
- Cost Per Sqft
- An Image/screenshot of your summary table (created in Word, Excel, Google Sheets, or any data table tool) showing the input values tested and the values computed for each of the reported parameters
- For the 2 new metrics, I choose to calculate Spatial Efficiency and Cost Per Sqft. The Spacial Efficiency is calculated by dividing total floor area by building footprint. This value can present how much useable areas can people use in a given footprint. And the cost per sqft is calculated by dividing total cost by the gross floor area. It further explores the cost efficiency than the total cost custom nodes. We can use it to make better decision on the ecomony aspect.
Mixed
- For 3 or More Units: Develop a Single-Objective Optimization Scheme
- Brief descriptions outlining:
- Your Single-Objective Optimization scheme (combination/comparison/ranking approach)
- My approach is simply normalize the value of each components, and then calculate the weighted sum of these values. The weights are 0.25(GFA), 0.1(GSA), 0.25(GV), 0.2(SE), and 0.2(CPS). For the Cost, the model with lower cost will have higher value.
- An Image/screenshot of your summary table (created in Word, Excel, Google Sheets, or any data table tool) showing the input values tested and the values computed for each of the reported parameters.
- Be sure to highlight your top 3 recommended design alternatives (for either one the example building forms or the new building form that you designed) and recommend the one design that you consider to be the “best”.
- An explanation of why you consider the recommended building form to be the “best” choice
- The top 3 building form is in the image. The best one is with 70 degree top rotation and 140 base radius. It achieves the highest GFA, GSA, GV, with moderate SE, and relatively low CPS(relatively high CPS score). There is some tradeoff between the values, and overall it is the best model based on my approach.
- Your answers to the Points to Ponder questions for each stage of the assignment that you completed.
- Do the new evaluation metrics that you’ve designed capture the meaningful differences between the building form alternatives? What other metrics would be useful to compute to help understand and make the case for which alternatives are truly better than others?
- Yes. The new evaluation metrics captures the special efficiency which is not included in consideration of base footprint before. In practice, the footprint area is fixed when the project is assigned. So it is important to think which building form will have more space for people to use in a given footprint area. Also, the Cost per Sqft is also captures the meaningful differences. It further enhance the analysis of cost. In the previous custom node, it only consider the total cost. And by dividing the total cost by the total floor area, we can better analyse the relationship between cost and floor area. As discussed in Kickoff Session, the sun direction and Directness to Object metrics would be also useful. The value of the building is affected by these parameters. By using these metrics, we can analyse the sun location relative to the building, and what kind of view can people see in the building.
- What overall strategy do you feel best captures the relationship between the evaluation metrics? Clearly articulating your design strategy is the key aspect of this task. Before you dive into implementing your scheme, briefly describe your thinking and strategy in a paragraph that outlines your thinking and approach.
- By normalizing the value, we can compare these values in different magnitude. For example, we can compare the model with base radius of 70 to 100. Although the GFA, GSA, GV, SE, CPS are different in magnitude, we can still get reasonable result. And by using the weighted sum, we can assign the importance to each value of interested. For example, in my approach, I assign more weight in cost than GSA. Since in this type of analysis, I focus more on the activity area that people can use than surface area that people can not use.
- What propelled the recommended alternative to the top of the list? Explain your reasoning -- include a brief analysis of why this alternative rose to the top of the list and why you consider it to be the best option. Are there important nuances or tradeoffs that got lost is the single evaluation?
- The weights I assigned to each value put the model on the top. If we choose another sets of weights, the top one would change. However, I choose this set of weight because I focus more on the area people can use. Thus, I set lower weights to the gross surface area that people can not directly use. There are some importance nuances or tradeoffs that got lost in the single evaluation. This evaluation only considers the value from the metrics. Other aspects of information is lost. Also, the forms are only changed by 2 parameters. We can put more parameters like heights and base rotations into consideration. Finally, the tradeoff of surface area and rotation is minimized by the weights.
65c7b9a955184075864e44f14e34262470d9ca04d0394d99915eaf00de90c2735942d3dabad9428281ab5dbbe9f2ffed
