Zexi Yin

Stage 1 - Create Two New Evaluator Custom Nodes (Two nodes are in “Analysis.dyf in submission link : https://acc.autodesk.com/docs/files/projects/6db2c3ca-7a2c-4f34-96a1-8a8189c7754d?folderUrn=urn%3Aadsk.wipprod%3Afs.folder%3Aco.B2VluZIcQUuIy2K9_kPlGQ&viewModel=detail&moduleId=folders)

Evaluator Node 1：Shape and Lighting Combination Index

By simulating the shadow projection area of a building in the direction of the sun and combining volume and contour relationships, a composite performance indicator that reflects the “lighting performance per unit volume” is generated.

By simulating the shadow projection area of a building under the direction of the sun and combining volume and contour relationships, a composite performance indicator that reflects the “daylighting performance per unit volume” is generated.

Logic：

Set the sun direction vector (see green annotation area): Use Vector.ByCoordinates and SunSettings to control the sunlight direction as a fixed 2D vector for subsequent illumination simulation.

Generate projection surfaces and shadow surfaces (Create a shadow surface that simulates the direction of sunlight):

Use the sun direction to project the building shape onto the ground to simulate the shadow of the building under the sun direction.

The projection is achieved using the Geometry.Translate + Geometry.Project node combination. Calculate the building projection area:

Use Surface.Area to obtain the shadow surface area (which actually represents “shading influence”). Combine indicators (Calculation of Shape and lighting combination index in the bottom-right corner): Combine factors such as volume and shadow area; the higher the value, the better the lighting performance per unit volume.

Evaluator Node 1：Shape and Lighting Combination Index

Input parameters include:

Building Volume; Gross Surface Area; Gross Floor Area, etc.

These values are calculated in Dynamo to ensure synchronization with the geometry.

Formula (see the blue module on the right Calculation of cost indicators)

Summary Table from Stage 1

Stage 2 - Develop a Single-Objective Optimization Scheme

In Stage2, I used a single-objective optimization function based on linear weighting to comprehensively evaluate the performance of the shape design. The two key evaluation indicators are:

• Shape and lighting combination index (Node 1)
• Cost indicator (Node 2)

The optimization function is set as: 0.6 * Shape and Lighting Index + 0.4 * Cost Indicator. The results are normalized and then sorted.

This function aims to balance lighting performance and cost, with a higher weighting on lighting (60%) to encourage improved lighting efficiency in the design while maintaining reasonable construction costs. For ease of sorting and selection, I normalized the calculated scores to obtain a Test Score, which is used for final sorting and selection of the best solution.

Summary Table For Stage 3:

Based on different building heights and rotation angles for each floor, I generated 23 design options. Each option was evaluated using two metrics calculated by a custom Dynamo script, and a composite score was output.

The following logic flow was implemented in the script:

• Calculate the linear weighted score directly from Node1 and Node2;
• Normalize the score list;
• Sort the scores and select the top three designs;
• Export the highest-scoring geometry to Revit for visualization.

Note: Unlike Module 5, where Revit Mass was directly selected, I directly constructed the geometric shapes in Dynamo: using plane capture → constructing sections → rotating and overlapping → forming the mass, and achieving full parametric control.

Top 3 Choice:

The comprehensive evaluation results show that the three highest-scoring designs have building heights of 205m, 210m, and 215m, with Test Scores of 0.9187, 0.9332, and 0.9486, respectively.

The three proposals are similar in terms of lighting performance, with construction costs showing a gradual decreasing trend, while the Gross Floor Area (GFA) falls precisely within the target range [2,500,000, 3,000,000] ft².

Considering spatial efficiency, cost control, and scoring performance, I recommend the 215-meter design proposal as the final optimal solution:

• Its GFA reaches 2,960,549 ft², approaching the upper limit;
• The cost indicator is 14,902,546 yuan, the lowest among the three;
• The daylighting indicator is on par with other high-scoring schemes, and the overall score is the highest (0.9486);
• The building volume is simple and stable.

Therefore, I believe the 215-meter design achieves the optimal balance across all performance metrics and is the most worthy design option to adopt in this optimization process.

Please enter the following info in the fields above:

• Your Name as the Card title
• The link to your Module 6 folder in our Autodesk Construction Cloud project

Please also type the first few letters of your first name into the Link to Student field, then hover over your name from the list of matching records and click the blue plus sign to link this entry to your Design Journal.

Then, share your Design Journal entry here (replacing these instructions) ... Click the text area below the headers and just start typing your response. There's no need to add new properties.

• For 2 or More Units: Create Two New Evaluator Nodes
• Images showing the node logic in your new evaluator nodes
• 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
• 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
• For 4 Units: Visualize the Recommended Alternative
• Images/screenshots showing the recommended building form based on your evaluation and analysis.
• If created in Revit or Grasshopper, show the panelized building form with visual feedback showing how your panels reflect one of the evaluations computed for the panels.
• If created in Autodesk Forma, share images/screenshots showing the results of the Daylight, Wind, and Solar Energy analysis.
• Your answers to the Points to Ponder questions for each stage of the assignment that you completed.