Stage 1.1 (First Trial) – Twisting Simple Triangle Mass 2
55 Floors with changing parameters:
- Top height, rotation, and radius
- Mid rotation, height
- Base Radius
- Total (mass) floors
I had to change this option because even I change the building dimensions to the maximum options (from task prompt), it wouldn’t satisfy the requirements of 25,000,000 – 30,000,000 sf
Stage 1 Part 1
Baseline design:
Form Design Options:
Stage 1 Part 2
Baseline Design:
I am using family template: Twisting tower 3 profiles and changing the top height to 720’, mid height to 350’, mid and top rotation to 30 deg.
I could not find what was wrong with the original project file, but the mass did not show the required metrics properly, including Gross Floor Area, Gross Surface Area, and Gross Volume. Therefore, I changed the building design and used the new project file with Twisting 2 Profiles for the final evaluation.
For Part 1, I tested an example twisting tower mass by changing the twist angle as the main flexible parameter. The overall building size and form were kept generally consistent, while the twist angle was adjusted to create different design alternatives. I tested six twist angle values: 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90°. This allowed me to compare how changing the tower rotation affects the building metrics, especially the gross floor area, gross surface area, and gross volume.
For Part 2, I created my own conceptual mass form and tested it by changing the building height as the main flexible parameter. The tower form can be dynamically adjusted by modifying the height, while the general footprint and massing logic remain the same. I tested the height from 600 ft to 720 ft, increasing by 20 ft for each scenario. This helped me understand how increasing the tower height affects the total floor area, envelope surface area, and building volume.
Point to Ponder: What’s the advantage of exporting the values to Excel?
Exporting the values to Excel is useful because it makes the results easier to organize, compare, and present. Instead of manually copying every value from Revit or Dynamo, Excel allows me to quickly create a clean table for all design scenarios. It also reduces the chance of mistakes because the data can be updated directly when the input parameters change. For this assignment, Excel helped me compare the different twist angle and height alternatives more clearly, especially when evaluating gross floor area, surface area, and volume side by side.
STAGE 2
Modeling Process
For this stage, I organized my Dynamo graph into several main parts: variable inputs, constant tower geometry, base profile, middle profile, top profile, and the evaluator section. I started by defining the base profile at the origin using a circle and converting it into a regular polygon, so the tower kept a consistent geometric form. Then, I created the middle and top profiles by translating the geometry upward to their respective heights, assigning their radii, and applying rotations about the Z-axis. Using these three profiles, I built the overall tower form and then evaluated the geometry based on its floor-area-related outputs. The main reported values were gross floor area, gross surface area, and gross volume, which were then used to support the carbon footprint evaluation. For the design study, I varied the Base Radius from 30 ft to 90 ft in 10 ft increments and the Middle Rotation from 0° to 90° in 15° increments, then compared the resulting forms and data in a table.
My design is a parametric tower generated from three polygon-based profiles: base, middle, and top. The form changes by adjusting the size, height, and rotation of these profiles, which allows the tower geometry to become more compact, wider, or more twisted depending on the selected values. Please see the image above for the parameters that can flex and dynamically change the structure.
Points to Ponder
Overall, I found that Base Radius had a much stronger effect on the final outcome than Middle Rotation. This makes sense because changing the base radius directly changes the size of the tower footprint, which then has a large impact on the gross floor area, surface area, and volume. In contrast, changing the middle rotation mostly affects the shape and visual twisting of the tower, but it does not change the building size as significantly as the radius does. Because of that, if the goal is to reduce carbon-related impacts or make the form more efficient, the radius is the parameter that should be controlled more carefully first, while rotation can be used more as a secondary design adjustment.
