2 Unit
(1st picture above): I created two new nodes one for the total cost of the floor area, and one for total solar impact on surfaces.
(2nd picture above): I added on a group of nodes called “calculating floor area cost” it takes the total height of the building and mutiply the surface area by cost per sqft. Totaling that would give you total cost.
(3rd picture above): Using the downloaded package for solar. I connected the weather in Dubai by grabbing the longitude and latitude and plugging into a weather node. That along with a date time set at 3:41 PM goes into the solar analysis node. That summed up is total solar impacting the building. Units Watt-hours per square meter or BTUs.
Note: To test the work all custom notes must be opened. All 3 custom nodes will be in the folder.
- For 3 or More Units: Develop a Single-Objective Optimization Scheme
- Brief descriptions outlining:
- Your Single-Objective Optimization scheme (combination/comparison/ranking approach)
- 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
3 Units
To compare these divergent metrics, I am implementing a Min-Max Normalization scheme combined with a weighted sum. Because the values exist on vastly different numerical scales (billions of dollars vs. millions of square feet), normalization maps each variable onto a standard 0 to 1 scale. For the 1 goal we want to maximize (Gross Floor Area - GFA and Solar Score).
For the 2nd goal we want to minimize (Gross Surface Area and Total Cost), the formula is inverted so the lowest raw value scores a 1.
For extra credit instead of making a ratio of cost/solar and choosing the highest ratio as my answer. I applied a weighting factor. Construction Cost is weighted at 40% due to project economics, Floor Area at 30% to push the design toward the 2.5M SF target, Solar Score at 15%, and Surface Area minimization at 15%. This creates a single objective "Master Score" out of 100 to rank the alternatives.
My 3 picks are Trail 6,9,11.
Trail 6 - This building maximizes the site's potential. It hits the maximum limit of 3.0 million square feet and catches the most solar energy. I am highlighting this to show what is possible if the developer is willing to spend $260 million more than the cheapest option.
Trail 9 - This is the cheapest building on the list at $1.59 Billion. It meets the developer's minimum requirement of 2.5 million square feet while keeping construction costs and surface area as low as possible.
Trail 11 - This option offers the best middle ground. At 2.73 million square feet. It still provides medium solar performance, but it costs significantly less than the maximum performance option.
Based on my evaluation, Trial 9 is my recommended building design. Trial 9 won because it is the cheapest option $1.59 Billion that still successfully meets the developer's minimum requirement of 2.5 million square feet.