Stage 1, Part 1
Input Parameters Held Constant | |
Top Height (ft) | 708 |
Top Rotation | 60º |
Top Radius (ft) | 130 |
Mid Rotation | 25º |
Mid Radius (ft) | 200 |
Mid Height (ft) | 200 |
Base Rotation | 0º |
Table Summarizing Results:
Description of Design:
For part 1 of stage 1, I inserted the “twisting simple triangle” building mass from the class shared Google Drive into Revit. This mass contains 3 triangular profiles, one at the base, one in the middle, and one at the top. To design the tower with the given constraints in mind, I increased the width and depth of the base profile to raise the building’s gross floor area while limiting the amount of square footage on the higher floors (for economic reasons). I also created a formula to ensure that the middle profile stays in the middle of the tower (Mid Height = Top Height / 2). Then, I played around with other parameters, such as the rotation of each of the profiles, until I got a desired shape.
For the assignment submission, I flexed the tower’s base radius parameter (from 200 ft to 350 ft, in increments of 25 ft) to test the effect on the gross floor area, surface area, and volume. As expected, increasing the base of the tower increased all three values. Finally, I added in nodes to export the resulting outputs to an Excel spreadsheet, where the data can be analyzed and visualized. The first table above shows the input parameters of the tower that were kept constant throughout the 7 different design scenarios. The second table above summarizes the results of increasing the base radius.
Stage 1, Part 2
Result:
Description of Design:
For part 2 of stage 1, I used Revit to create a new building profile in the shape of a diamond. I then applied this profile to my tower from part 1, so that all 3 profiles in the tower were now diamond-shaped. The input parameters that can be changed include the width and depth of each profile and the rotation of the base, middle, and top profiles. I decided to explore one parameter for this part of the submission, the rotation of the middle profile, while keeping the other inputs constant. As with the previous tower design, I added a formula to ensure that the middle diamond profile stays in the center of the tower (Mid Height = Top Height / 2).
The table above shows the result of flexing the mid rotation from 30º to 90º in increments of 10º. Interestingly, there is no linear relationship between the increase in mid rotation and the size of the tower. As seen in the table, the gross floor area, surface area, and volume increase from 30º to 60º, but then decrease as the angle gets larger.
Points to Ponder: “What’s the advantage of exporting the values to Excel?”
Exporting the values from Dynamo/Revit to Excel has several advantages. If this is done automatically (e.g. by using nodes), then it saves time, since you wouldn’t have to manually input the values into a spreadsheet. Also, once the numbers are in the spreadsheet, you can save, analyze, and visualize the data. For instance, you can make graphs, take the average of the values, etc. Finally, having the data in Excel makes it easier to share with other people, which may be useful in a group project.
Stage 2
Description of Design:
For stage 2, I created a custom building form using Dynamo. I decided to make it highly customizable and a bit more experimental and flexible than typical polygon forms. The building mass contains 3 profiles, which are nurbs curves each defined by 4 points (with each point having x-y coordinates). The 3 profiles are lofted together to create the surface/volume. The parameters that can be flexed include: the coordinates of each point for all three profiles (base, middle, and top), the height of the middle profile, and the height of the top profile. This gives the designer freedom and creativity to experiment with the form of the structure while still achieving the design targets (e.g. meeting the minimum gross floor area).
The procedure I followed to create this building form in Dynamo was similar to the ones for the previous parts. I began by creating the 3 profiles, then translated the middle and top, lofted them to form a surface/volume, then added nodes to vary 2 inputs and export the results. However, one unique step was adding planes that intersect the building at every floor to create “mass floors” (like the ones in Revit). This allowed me to calculate the gross floor area of the building.
Points to Ponder: “Which of these inputs tested has the biggest effect on creating a desirable building form?”
One input I tested that had a significant impact on the outputs was the height of the top profile. As this parameter increased, the gross floor area, surface area, and volume of the building all increased. In my “test”, I increased the top profile height by 10’ at a time while keeping other parameters constant. This allowed me to find what building height would be optimal for creating a tower that meets the minimum gross floor area requirement (to keep cost lower). This was determined to be at a top height of 710’ and a mid height of 270’ (resulting in a gross floor area of 2,507,886 sf).