Structural system type (e.g., moment frame, braced frame, shear wall)
Bay width and spacing
Member sizes and materials
Building height
Evaluators:
Maximum interstory drift ratio
Seismic base shear resistance
Total structural cost (material + labor)
Constructability and erection time
Tradeoffs:
Stiffness vs. Cost: A stiffer system (e.g., shear walls) reduces drift but can increase material and labor costs.
Architectural Flexibility vs. Seismic Performance: Braced frames may limit open spaces, whereas moment frames allow flexibility but may perform worse in high seismic zones.
Material Weight vs. Foundation Demand: Heavier systems may provide strength but increase loads on the foundation.
2. Building Envelope Design
Design Variables:
Window-to-wall ratio (WWR)
Insulation thickness and type
Glazing type
External shading devices
Evaluators:
Annual energy use intensity (EUI)
Peak cooling and heating loads
Visual comfort (daylight autonomy, glare)
Upfront capital cost
Tradeoffs:
Energy Efficiency vs. Initial Cost: High-performance glazing and insulation reduce operating energy but increase upfront costs.
Daylight vs. Solar Heat Gain: More windows increase daylight and occupant satisfaction but can raise cooling demands.
Thermal Performance vs. Aesthetics: Highly insulated opaque façades improve thermal performance but may reduce architectural appeal.
3. Construction Planning Crane Placement on Project Site
Design Variables:
Crane type and capacity
Crane location (x, y coordinates)
Swing radius and tower height
Number of cranes
Evaluators:
Time to lift and place materials
Safety clearance distances
Total equipment and labor cost
Tradeoffs:
Efficiency vs. Site Congestion: A centrally located crane reduces lift time but may obstruct other site operations.
Number of Cranes vs. Cost: More cranes speed up construction. They allow operations to happen in parallel and reduce the need to disassemble and reassemble to move existing cranes. However. this significantly raises cost.
Lift Capacity vs. Equipment Flexibility: Larger cranes can handle heavier loads but are less adaptable and harder to relocate.
Step 2 - Generative Design Study
Design Variables:
Building base radius
Midheight radius
Top side length
Total building height
Rotation (orientation)
X and Y coordinates of centroid (building location on site)
Evaluators:
Cost as a Function of Building Height and Floor Area at Each Height: Taller buildings increase structural and construction costs. Evaluating cost at different heights ensures economic feasibility.
Total Floor Area: Directly influences rentable space, revenue potential, and program efficiency. Maximizing this without violating zoning or site limits is key.
Building Footprint Area: Impacts site usage, open space, and ground-level programming. A compact footprint may allow for more landscape or circulation, while a large one may conflict with zoning or site constraints.
Building Glazing Area: Affects daylight access, visual transparency, thermal performance, and aesthetics. Excessive glazing increases cooling loads and embodied carbon but improves daylight and views.
Embodied Carbon: Measures the environmental impact of materials based on the form. A wider base or taller structure typically requires more structural mass, increasing carbon footprint.
Building Location (Centroid X, Y): Affects view corridors, shading impacts, and integration with site features such as roads, green spaces, and existing infrastructure.
Key Tradeoffs:
Maximizing floor area may increase cost and embodied carbon.
Increasing building height or side lengths increases glazing surface area but also costs and embodied carbon
Design Decision 1
Low glazing area, medium cost, low footprint area, high embodied carbon, high aesthetics score
Design Decision 2
Medium glazing area, high cost, medium footprint area, high embodied carbon, medium aesthetics score
Design Decision 3
Medium glazing area, low cost, medium footprint area, medium embodied carbon, low aesthetics score
‣
Step 3 - Generative Design Study Results
Summary: Prioritizing glazing area and height for aesthetics while minimizing cost yields the preferred design solution above.
1. Balanced Glazing Area and Cost
In the scatter plot (Cost vs. Glazing Area), this design appears closer to the middle range in both axes. It avoids the extreme high-cost outliers while still offering a substantial amount of glazing area, which is desirable for daylighting and visual connectivity.
2. Low Embodied Carbon Relative to Floor Area
Despite its large total floor area, the design maintains a moderate embodied carbon value of 2.46 billion units. This indicates good material efficiency for the space provided.
The embodied carbon per floor area ratio is favorable compared to other options with similar or lower glazing areas but higher environmental costs.
3. Architectural Form
The selected geometry, with a sculptural waisted form, likely contributes to aesthetic appeal.
