For this assignment, I expanded the Module 5 testing workflow by creating two new evaluator custom nodes in Dynamo to compare different tower form alternatives. The first custom node, Envelope Efficiency Evaluator, calculates the ratio between Gross Floor Area and Gross Surface Area to measure how efficiently the building envelope creates usable floor area. The second custom node, Construction Cost Evaluator, estimates the overall construction cost using the Gross Floor Area multiplied by an average construction cost of $750 per square foot based on the project assumptions.
I tested multiple tower variations by changing the twist parameter while maintaining the same overall height and general footprint dimensions. The evaluation results were organized into a summary table showing the input parameter values and the computed metrics for each design alternative, including Gross Floor Area, Gross Surface Area, Gross Volume, Envelope Efficiency, and Estimated Construction Cost.
The new evaluation metrics helped capture meaningful differences between the tower alternatives beyond the basic geometric measurements from Module 5. The Envelope Efficiency metric showed that higher twist values generally reduced the efficiency of the tower because the building created less usable floor area relative to its envelope surface area. The Estimated Construction Cost metric also showed how geometric changes impacted the overall project cost.
Based on the comparison results, the 45° twisted tower was selected as the preferred alternative because it maintained the required floor area while reducing both surface area and projected construction cost compared to the lower-twist options. The 45° option also created a more visually dynamic tower form appropriate for a high-rise project located near Business Bay and Burj Khalifa in Dubai.
Other metrics that would be useful for future evaluations include solar exposure, daylight performance, wind performance, structural efficiency, and view quality. These additional metrics would provide a more complete understanding of environmental performance and occupant experience for the proposed tower design.
Meaning | |
Valid Area? | GFA between 2.5M and 3.0M SF |
Efficiency Score | higher efficiency = better |
Cost Score | lower cost = better |
Design Score | more twist/visual identity = better |
Total Score | combined single-objective score |
Rank | final ranking |
Metric | Points |
Meets required GFA | 5 |
Best envelope efficiency | 1–5 |
Lowest valid cost | 1–5 |
Architectural expression | 1–5 |
Total Score = Area Score + Efficiency Score + Cost Score + Design Score
Twist | Area Score | Efficiency Score | Cost Score | Design Score | Total | Rank |
0° | 5 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 4 |
15° | 5 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 13 | 3 |
30° | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 2 |
45° | 5 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 15 | 1 |
60° | 0 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 11 | 5 |
The single-objective optimization scheme combined area validity, envelope efficiency, estimated construction cost, and architectural expression into one total score. I gave the highest priority to meeting the required floor area because any option outside the 2.5M–3.0M SF range would not satisfy the project brief. After that, I considered envelope efficiency and cost because the developer wants to reduce envelope surface area and construction cost. I also included architectural expression because the project is located near Business Bay and Burj Khalifa, so the tower should have a strong visual identity. Based on this scoring method, the 45° twisted tower ranked highest because it still met the required floor area while reducing surface area and cost compared to the lower-twist options. The main limitation of this single-objective score is that it simplifies complex tradeoffs into one number, so some design nuance, such as solar performance, wind behavior, and view quality, is not fully captured.