Design Journal Entry - Module 6

Journal Entry For
Module 6 - Evaluate Your Alternatives
ACC Folder Link
https://acc.autodesk.com/docs/files/projects/ef862b37-e023-4ef6-8ec3-3615621538bf?folderUrn=urn%3Aadsk.wipprod%3Afs.folder%3Aco.04f5z_iHQpCeeO3IJRAfxg&viewModel=detail&moduleId=folders
Link to Student
Crowell, Willa
Test
Floor Count
Floor Height
Twist Angle
Scale Factor
Floor Value Eval ($)
Facade Efficiency
Final Score
1
8
12
0°
1.0
4.0518e+6
0.566238
2.0514e+6
2
8
12
1°
1.0
4.0518e+6
0.555438
2.0514e+6
3
8
12
2°
1.0
4.0518e+6
0.527001
2.0514e+6
4
8
12
4°
1.0
4.0518e+6
0.449757
2.0513e+6
5
10
12
2°
1.0
5.0648e+6
0.527802
2.5652e+6
6
12
12
2°
1.0
6.0778e+6
0.408721
3.0786e+6
7
10
10
2°
1.0
5.0648e+6
0.482789
2.5596e+6
8
10
15
2°
1.0
5.0648e+6
0.33725
2.5724e+6
9
10
12
2°
0.9
5.0648e+6
0.600595
2.559e+6
10
10
12
2°
0.8
5.0648e+6
0.691535
2.5534e+6
11
10
12
3°
0.9
5.0648e+6
0.562533
2.5589e+6
12
10
12
5°
0.9
5.0648e+6
0.481683
2.5587e+6

Floor Value Evaluator

image

Facade Efficinecy

image

The optimization strategy combines floor area value, building volume, and facade efficiency into a single weighted score used to compare and rank the building form alternatives. Greater emphasis was placed on floor area value and volume because maximizing usable building space and overall building capacity were considered the primary design goals, while facade efficiency was weighted lower to account for material and geometric efficiency.

Rank
Reason
Design option
1
High floor area value combined with strong overall volume and balanced facade efficiency created the highest overall performance score.
6
2
Slightly lower final score but achieved very high facade efficiency and a more compact form.
8
3
Produced strong building volume and dynamic twisting geometry while maintaining acceptable efficiency values.
5

The recommended building form is the alternative that achieved the highest final optimization score because it balanced usable floor area, overall building volume, and facade efficiency more successfully than the other tested options. While some alternatives performed better in a single category, this option provided the strongest overall balance between spatial capacity, geometric efficiency, and architectural form quality.

The single-objective optimization simplified the comparison process by reducing multiple performance criteria into one score, but some tradeoffs were lost in the process. For example, highly twisted forms created more visually dynamic designs but sometimes reduced facade efficiency, while more efficient forms occasionally appeared less expressive architecturally.