Dayana Bulatbekova

Please enter the following info in the fields above:

• Your Name as the Card title
• The link to your Module 5 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.

Part 1:

In the first part , I worked with an existing rectangular twisting tower conceptual mass model in Revit. The form was defined by parametric inputs including the base width and length, top width and length, overall height, and the rotation angle applied at the top floor. This model allowed for controlled geometric variation through simple parameter changes.

Using Dynamo, I created a parametric graph that flexed the height of the building between 400 meters and 450 meters, and the rotation angle between 15 and 60 degrees. The purpose of this analysis was to observe how these variables influenced the gross floor area, envelope surface area, and overall volume of the design. Each iteration was carefully evaluated to ensure the gross floor area remained within the project constraint of 2,500,000 to 3,000,000 SF. The Dynamo logic enabled automated testing and data extraction, allowing performance metrics to be efficiently recorded across multiple design scenarios.

Part 2:

I designed a custom conceptual mass family in Revit to explore more flexible tower geometries. The form consisted of three vertically stacked profiles (base, middle, and top) that could each be independently rotated and scaled. The key parameters included overall height, width and length of the footprint, and rotation angles at the base, middle, and top levels. This allowed for complex twisted and tapered forms that responded dynamically to input changes.

I integrated this model into the same Dynamo analysis workflow, varying the height between 450 meters and 700 meters, and applying rotation angles from 15 to 60 degrees across the levels. The goal was to assess how these geometric manipulations impacted the floor area, surface area, and volume. As in Part 1, all test cases were constrained to keep the total floor area below 3,000,000 SF.

This approach enabled a comparative evaluation of both standardized and custom-designed forms, focusing on how simple parametric changes influence overall building performance in terms of spatial efficiency and surface exposure.

Here is my conceptual mass that i used: