Note: When I try downloading and opening my files on other devices, they can be buggy… not sure why but the TA’s in OH saw that my code was working!
Stage 1: Creating Forms with Conceptual Masses
For the first part of this stage, I used a template conceptual mass, assigned levels according to the maximum height specified in the design brief (755’), and edited the custom Dynamo node to output Gross Volume as another report metric. I also added code so that the excel outputs would be formatted with the corresponding input names and values tested. This resulted in the following variations, ranging from 500’-720’:
Tower Top Height 720’:
Tower Top Height 500’:
The excel results indicate that none of the tested forms would meet the minimum gross floor area requirement of 2.5M sf. However, 720’ got the closest and had the largest gross surface area and gross volume from the tests results.
In creating my own form for Part 2, I decided to build off of the 3-point chevron template and replacing the base and top geometries with rounted triangular profiles and the middle geometry with a simple tirangle profile. I had to experiement with different rotation angles and radii to maximize floor area in order to achieve the 2.5-3M sf requirement (which I realized I did not meet in my first attempt with the template geometry above).
I was able to achieve this range between a top height of 620-720’, as shown in the 2 variations pictured below.
Top Height 650’:
Top Height 720’:
My excel results (shown below) indicate that the ideal height for this variation would be between 620’-720’ (or slightly above 620’ and slightly above 720’). To minimize gross surface area, though, maintaining a height of 620-650’ would be most ideal. This would also minimize gross volume.
Point to Ponder: What’s the advantage of exporting the values to Excel?
- The advantage of exporting the values to Excel allows you to store and document design alternatives while you are experimenting. That way, you can compare the performance of different metrics for all of the alternatives you are generating in an organized, centralized manner.
Stage 2: Creating Forms with Dynamo or Grasshopper Geometry
To approach stage 2, I created a Dynamo profile based on the following geometry: 1 base rectangle, 1 mid-height ellipse, and 1 top rectangle. I wanted to experiment with curves and edges, and I thought that since both were oblong shapes, they could loft relatively easily. This was true to a certain extent; through trial and error, I discovered that an ellipse width of 50’ was too narrow and caused problems in the tower generation. This resulted in a series of null values in my excel outputs.
Thus, I decided to keep the following inputs constant throughout my runs:
Base Rectangle Length: 300’
Mid Ellipse x-radius: 200’
Mid Ellipse y-radius: 100’
Mid Ellipse Height: 200’
Top Rectangle Width: 900’
Top Rectangle Length: 300’
For my flex inputs, I decided to play with the top rectangle height and the base rectangle width. To experiment within the design specifications of a maximum height of 755’, I wanted to flex the top rectangle’s height to see how tall the building would have to be to meet the acceptable floor area range with respect to another flex parameter to change the base profile. Since my the middle surface is an ellipse, the curved nature of the tower changes depending on the dimensions of the bottom and/or top rectangle, which prompted me to choose the base width as one of my inputs. Further, I thought that this would be a good way to find one of the optimal solutions within the design brief that specified a maximum width of 984’ for the project site.
Within the below ranges (which were cross multiplied with a Cartesian product function), I have highlighted 2 potential designs. The results generated for this stage are the same as the ones discussed in the following Stage 3 section.
- Min Floor Area : Surface Area Ratio:
Top Height: 400’
Base Width: 400’
- Max Floor Area : Surface Area Ratio
Top Height: 700’
Base Width: 600’
Point to Ponder: Which of these inputs tested has the biggest effect on creating a desirable building form?
- Using the Floor : Surface Area Ratio created for stage 3, a 100’ change in base width from 400’ to 600’ can result in over a .06 increase in the ratio. On the other hand, a 100’ change in tower height from 600’ to 700’ only results in less than a .01 increase in the ratio. This indicates that base width is the most impactful flex input to change the tower performance. Considering the fact that we want low surface area and high floor area (within the desired range), the higher the ratio the better. Thus, we want to increase the base width as much as possible without maxing out the floor area to get a desirable alternative.
Stage 3: Summarizing the Testing Results
Again, the flex inputs for my tower are the top rectangle height and the bottom rectangle width. In addition to the standard outputs of Gross Surface Area, Gross Floor Area, and Gross Volume, I added another input to report the Floor Area : Surface Area ratio. I CREATIVELY coded this to be reported in the same excel spreadsheet, with dynamic labels that are updated as the code changes
After cross multiplying my inputs, I ended up generating 16 design alternatives (see screenshot).
FOR CREATIVITY I added supplemental code in Dynamo to identify the maximum and minimum of the Floor Area : Surface Area Ratio, which helps to flag which design options offer the worst and best outcomes within the design brief specifications.
Point to Ponder: Which of these pairs of input values gives the most desirable result? Which building form would you recommend to the developer and why?
- The pair that gave me the most desirable result (i.e., the highest floor area : surface area ratio) was the 700’ top height and 600’ base width alternative, which had a 3.173 ratio score. Because of this, I would recommend this alternative to the developer since it well within the height and width restrictions for the site and still provides an allowable floor area (2.9M sf).