Stage 1: Creating Forms with Revit Conceptual Masses
- Parameters that can change
- top height, radius & rotation
- mid height, radius & rotation
- base height, radius & rotation
Point to Ponder: What’s the advantage of exporting the values to Excel?
- An advantage of exporting points to excel is that one can easily make plots or analyze the data in Excel. I used Boolen.True to override the old excel data file with new results each run.
Stage 2: For 3 or More Units: Creating Forms with Dynamo or Grasshopper Geometry
Top Height [ft] | 600 | 600 | 600 | 600 | 650 | 650 | 650 | 650 | 700 | 700 | 700 | 700 |
Base Radius [ft] | 120 | 140 | 160 | 180 | 120 | 140 | 160 | 180 | 120 | 140 | 160 | 180 |
Gross Floor Area [ft2] | 2.69E+06 | 2.86E+06 | 3.04E+06 | 3.23E+06 | 2.37E+06 | 2.52E+06 | 2.69E+06 | 2.86E+06 | 2.29E+06 | 2.44E+06 | 2.59E+06 | 2.76E+06 |
Gross Surface Area [ft2] | 592,370 | 617,813 | 644,728 | 673,102 | 569,901 | 595,321 | 622,130 | 650,317 | 578,015 | 603,720 | 630,777 | 659,176 |
- The parameters I decided to flex in this stage were the base radius and top height.
Point to Ponder: Which of these inputs tested has the biggest effect on creating a desirable building form?
- The height has a large impact in the aesthetics, since the taller building forms looked nicer, but the base radius has the largest impact in making the design feasible. When the base radius was too small or too large, the overall floor area would be outside the constraint. The height did not change the floor area as much.
Stage 3: For 4 Units: Summarizing the Testing Results
Top height [ft] | Base radius [ft] | Floor Area [ft2] | Surface Area [ft2] | Floor Area / Surface Area |
600 | 120 | 2.69E+06 | 592370 | 4.54 |
600 | 130 | 2.77E+06 | 604907 | 4.58 |
600 | 140 | 2.86E+06 | 617813 | 4.62 |
600 | 150 | 2.95E+06 | 631088 | 4.67 |
625 | 130 | 2.57E+06 | 587502 | 4.37 |
625 | 140 | 2.65E+06 | 600350 | 4.41 |
625 | 150 | 2.73E+06 | 613552 | 4.45 |
625 | 160 | 2.82E+06 | 627109 | 4.49 |
625 | 170 | 2.90E+06 | 641016 | 4.53 |
625 | 180 | 3.00E+06 | 655275 | 4.57 |
650 | 140 | 2.52E+06 | 595321 | 4.24 |
650 | 150 | 2.60E+06 | 608552 | 4.28 |
650 | 160 | 2.69E+06 | 622130 | 4.32 |
650 | 170 | 2.77E+06 | 636051 | 4.36 |
650 | 180 | 2.86E+06 | 650317 | 4.40 |
675 | 150 | 2.54E+06 | 610660 | 4.16 |
675 | 160 | 2.62E+06 | 624293 | 4.20 |
675 | 170 | 2.70E+06 | 638266 | 4.24 |
675 | 180 | 2.79E+06 | 652578 | 4.28 |
700 | 150 | 2.51E+06 | 617080 | 4.07 |
700 | 160 | 2.59E+06 | 630777 | 4.11 |
700 | 170 | 2.67E+06 | 644809 | 4.15 |
700 | 180 | 2.76E+06 | 659176 | 4.19 |
- The parameters I decided to flex in this stage were the base radius and top height. I also created a new node that calculated the floor area/surface area. I also added boolean logic to constrain the square footage to be within the constraint.
Point to Ponder: Which of these pairs of input values gives the most desirable result? Which building form would you recommend to the developer and why?
- Max: 4.67
- Min: 4.07
- A higher floor area to surface area ratio is ideal because it is a measure of space efficiency. I would recommend that building form to the developer because it produces the most floor area relative to the amount of building envelope required. This is beneficial because a larger gross floor area can increase the building’s usable or rentable space, while a smaller envelope area can reduce facade material costs and heat transfer.